SlimVirgin wrote:
What I meant to add is that the "list of
quotations" articles are
impossible to copy edit, and even if you try, you'll be instantly
reverted. As a result, our most contentious pieces are often nothing
more than, "A said X, while B said Y, but C did not concur, adding
that Z."
While such writing is pretty clearly acting as placeholder for a more
mature treatment, it is still true to our basic principles.
"Placeholder" is the best we can do, until solid academic discussions
come along (and even those have to be slotted in as they merit it, not
simply used to carpet-bomb dissent). And "holding the ring" in
contentious areas, for the sake of NPOV, is how Wikipedia operates
(feature not a bug).
No doubt, it is tempting to look at the topic hot-spots as indicative of
any possible breakdown of model. But I really don't think anything quite
so unrepresentative should be taken as central to the writing issue. I
certainly don't think we should start muddling up the key content
policies and the Manual of Style. Those are, and for good reason,
functionally separate.
Charles