--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com
But I don't think Wikipedia can work like that. Balance can't come without stability.
I agree. In other words, we demand civility in the treatment of other people, regardless of their views.
A stable article is one which any side in a controversy can look at and say, yes, this article describes my side accurately and does not give an unfair advantage to the other
side.
This is absolutely correct and about the best definition I have heard of what we should aim for.
Sometimes I want to propose a rule that, when someone goes on a POV crusade, they should be told
not to edit any more until they can "state the other side's case to >the satisfaction of the other side" (to paraphrase famous >success coach Steven Covey).
This would be a very good *rule.* When Magnus gets his Annotations hack working for test/wikisource-- we should use it on Wikipedia talk pages to give some threaded depth to the back and forth multidirectional discourse--otherwise these discussions will be continue to be as incoherent as they are now.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com