Delirium wrote
I don't think we're doubting that there are
Wikipedians. What's doubted
is that these Wikipedians are, in the current system, producing quality
articles on controversial topics.
It is not proved, to my satisfaction, that there is any system that really
will produce worthy articles on the core contentious topics. Which are
basically: the more acrid parts of US politics, the Middle East.
I don't believe that the Oder-Neisse line controversies, which Delirium
referenced, are as bad as they were. I think the issue of how to deal with
communist history, which appears to have been the last straw for Adam Carr,
is not one that is a daily problem.
Baby and bathwater: I'll take the word of those that look at it all the time
that the Israeli-Palestinian area has suffered some 'balkanisation'. A
point I have made before is that if you try to write contemporary history,
especially without enough primary materials, you have a self-imposed
problem.
Solutions: I'd be quite happy if the ArbCom did crank up its sanctions for
egregious POV editing, but there is never going to be a shortage of POV
editors until the world changes. I still like rapid pendulum arbitration
and short-term page protection to take the heat out of edit wars.
Charles