Chad Perrin (perrin@apotheon.com) [050208 08:25]:
David Gerard wrote:
particular perspective with identified adherents. Thus, if Stormfront troopers swarm in and add some biased information as though it were gospel, rather than actively oppose it, editors should simply . . . edit it. Tidy up the language, make it non-repetitive, collect it in one section, and label it as a particular perspective.
I'm sure S*ll*g was very pleased with the results ;-)
I think I missed a reference, there.
<whisper>Look at the history of [[Sollog]] some time ...</whisper>
Search for it independently, then. If you don't find a reference, edit it out if need be WITH A NOTE to the effect that it is unsubstantiated at this time, and will be re-entered at such time as it can be substantiated (note probably delivered both on the talk page and in a note for the history page). Editing other people's contributions out should include justifications, anyway, and should not be done as a first resort, in my considered opinion. Don't edit what someone else has said without being positive you know the reasons for what came before your edit, even if your own edit requires attempts at independent verification.
I find that with a new, hotheaded but potentially sincere editor, commenting out a dubious addition (HTML comments - start "<!--" and end "-->" ), starting the comment with a request for a reference, produces better results than just deleting material. It gives them a better idea of the standard to work to.
Besides, if their heads explode you'll have reduced the population of people introducing problematic edits into controversial articles.
I'd rather convert them into NPOV pushers ;-) The Arbitration Committee has recently reaffirmed that even the worst editors are to be regarded as theoretically redeemable!
Really, I've found they're really bad at checkable references on even the simple stuff - e.g. "This organization believes ..." It's actually really annoying.
I certainly don't disagree with that. Activists do tend to have that problem, and it definitely does tend to be annoying.
"WE DONOT THINK THAT YOU ZOG ACTIVIST" "So do you have a checkable reference for what your organization does believe?" "LOOK IT UP URSELF ASSWIP" "You put it in, you supply the reference. Statements with solid refs do stay in." *silence*
NPOV implies writing for the POV you don't agree with - I edit a lot on Scientology and neo-Nazi articles and try to keep my strong opinions on both topics in check and stick to the facts with references, ma'am - but there's a limit to how much of someone else's homework I can be bothered doing.
- d.