On 6/24/07, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:52:42AM -0400, The Mangoe wrote:
There is another problem with using the projects as core organizing points.A lot of them are organized around interest in a particular controversial subject, and therefore present POV issues. I imagine that most Christianity project members are Christians, and that most Anglican project members are Anglicans, and so forth. And then we get to the LDS project and the LGBT project and we would end up with, um, problems. (Not to mention REALLY sending Merkey of on a tear.)
I think this is overly pessamistic and does not agree with my experience. People who form a Project that invariably will attract people who "belong" in the sense you suggest, step over backwards to ensure that their local guidelines fit the core policies. They are often more critical of articles on non-notable topics than other editors might be. I think we should all accept good faith here. I much bigger problem is the way some editors who do not understand the topic really muck up the article. They can join a Project but the Project will sort them out.
Bduke
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia. Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
Projects are a good place to find knowledgable people--only deletionists fear knowledge introduced. One word from the fishes guy led to an acceptable keep all around on an article.
KP