slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Jon. The problem with the proposed ruling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Propos... is that it reprimands two editors because they asked for sources from an inveterate POV-pusher, which is exactly what they should have done. The policy is [[WP:V]], which says: (1) the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds the material (in this case Xed and an anon); (2) one reason to ask for sources is if the edit is overly vague (it was) and if the editor has a history of making inaccurate claims (Xed does); and (3) any material not sourced may be removed by any editor.
Yep.
Jay and Viriditas were asking for sources for some wild claims inserted by an anon and supported by Xed, including that the film Divine Intervention had not been nominated for an Academy Award because of a "vigorous campaign by Zionist activists to bar the movie ..." There was no evidence at all of any "Zionist" campaign. There's a good ABC News article about the controversy, which was basically a series of misunderstandings combined with a lack of insight into the Palestinian situation. http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79485&page=1 One of the proposed findings of fact says that: "After Xed restored, Jayjg demanded sources despite the fact that a simple Google search gives 80,000 hits ..." But the Google search cited was for "'Divine Intervention' academy". http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=...
Yep.
The proposed decision sends a message that editors have to be careful when asking for sources, which is the opposite of the one many of us are trying to get across.
And that's why this proposed decision is not only mind-bogglingly awful both as a way to treat good editors, but even *more so* for its follow-on effects. It sets an incredibly awful example and it amazes me that there are people this isn't obvious to at a glance.
- d.