On Monday 07 February 2005 11:19, David Gerard wrote:
Jake Waskett (jake@waskett.org) [050207 13:05]:
Ok, Jimbo, you're right. Let me amend my earlier statement: on the whole, the system is working, but in a few articles, it is not. Now, the question is this: what can be done about the problem? One solution that I favour is to have permanent protection on targetted pages, and have a nominated admin apply changes that are agreed upon by vote on the article's talk page. What do others think?
Consensus is a means to NPOV, not something that trumps it. A vote would exacerbate the recruitment problem you have described.
Yes, I see your point. Unfortunately, though, there's no way of automating a test for neutrality, so humans have to be involved.
What about unanimous vote? If every editor had the ability to veto a change, it could work. Nobody would (presumably) object to truly NPOV changes, but at least one person would surely object to any attempt to insert POV changes.
I guess I'm assuming that at least two "sides" will be represented in such a controversial article here, but the evidence suggests that is not such an unreasonable assumption. The nice thing about this is that it doesn't matter how many neo-nazis (or whatever) descend upon Wiki - it only takes one non-nazi editor to keep the article neutral.
One problem that I can see might involve some editors objecting just to be difficult, but I'm sure we could deal with such a situation.
Thoughts?
Jake.