The only reason the current Arbitration Committee does not consider content is because we believe there is a community consensus that we should not. We do, in effect, consider content when the problem is aggressive POV editing, but as to deciding the essential nature of gravity we might be out of our depth. It is ok for Lieutenant Commander Data to throw about talk about gravitons but there are necessarily limits. However an editor who claims Scotland in Asia, that we might be able to deal with. As to whether Mongolia is in Central Asia or East Asia, well the problem is really with the editors who thinks it's important enough to revert over and over and over and over.
Fred
From: slimvirgin@gmail.com Reply-To: slimvirgin@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:27:02 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 02:42:57 +0000, Abe Sokolov abesokolov@hotmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has a court reprimanding users for breaking the 3RR and making personal attacks. But it lacks an authority reprimanding users for chronically undermining Wikipedia's progress with original research, POV nonsense, and ungrammatical prose. My suggestion on Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards was an alternative arbitration committee with public credibility, composed of qualified encyclopedists who have the calhones not to edit anonymously.
Exactly right, and I can't think of a single reason that anyone would want to oppose this. It wouldn't prioritize content over process, but would simply put the two on a par, which is the right approach because the two are inextricably linked. The content-related policies are already in place; all we need is a committee able and willing to enforce them.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l