Sometimes we do, but sometimes we lose our nerve. Most of the
arbitration committee are elected. Insisting on inclusion of
unpopular points of view is not conducive to maintaining popularity.
Announcing a high-minded principle is one thing, living by it - another.
Fred
On Jun 6, 2005, at 6:08 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
steven l. rubenstein said:
I do not believe that disputes over
content are irresolvable, but I do think that there are POV warriors
who insist on including content even if it comes from narrow and
perhaps even
disreputable sources, and deleting content that is the product of
good
research.
Arbcom can and does rule in such cases. In the Robert the Bruce
case, for
instance, arbcom affirmed the principle that "Removal of references
from
articles is generally inappropriate" by 8-0 and "It is
inappropriate to
remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the
subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances
a point
of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all
significant
points of view" by 9-0.
These were also reaffirmed in the case of Robert Blair, who was
involved
in the same dispute on the other side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/
Robert_the_Bruce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/
Robert_Blair
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l