*Sam Korn* smoddy at
gmail.com
<wikien-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Neutrality%20enforcement%3A%20a%20proposal&In-Reply-To=7c402e010905081322n210b417p376e7dc413f750bf%40mail.gmail.com>
*Fri May 8 20:37:10 UTC 2009*
This is the key point, I think. We don't have an absolute definition
of neutrality. We don't even have a "I know it when I see it" kind of
system. Neutrality -- everywhere -- is a work in progress. Now,
SlimVirgin recognises this, which is why the proposal reads
"However, looking at an editor's contributions as a whole, it should
be clear to any reasonable, and reasonably well-informed, onlooker
that the editor is regularly and substantively trying to be fair to
both sides."
That is obviously an attempt to move away from requiring neutrality
and towards requiring a good-faith effort towards neutrality, which is
the only way the proposal could work.
That's exactly right. All this group would be looking for are good-faith
efforts to edit in accordance with the NPOV policy. It's not an attempt to
control content, but behaviour. Perhaps we should change the title to
reflect that.
Yes, it could be gamed, but it would be such a hassle for the gamers that
only the most determined would do it, and the most determined won't be
stopped by any process we put in place.
If people think the mailing list is too cabalistic, we can get rid of that.
The question is whether the spirit of the proposal might work. The details
can always be changed.
Also, bear in mind that the proposal is that this would be an *experiment*
regarding the I/P articles, because nothing else has worked. It could be
time-limited to ensure it doesn't turn into a permanent fixture, or get
expanded, without further community input.
Sarah