A number of people have expressed concern that my proposal is too extreme. Well, I can't say I agree, but here's a proposal for a "gentler" approach:
Create and use a template for controversial articles, that says, in effect: "This is a highly controversial article. Before making any changes, please familiarise yourself with the discussion page, and add a comment describing your change and the justification for it." We should also link to WP:NPOV.
If that works, great! I doubt it will, but it won't hurt to try.
If it doesn't work, we can create a "3 unjustified edits rule", similar to the 3RR, and enforced in the same way. This need only be applied to articles with the controversial header.
This should help to some extent, as forcing descriptions and justifications will slow editors down and may also create a deterrent for edits that authors *know* are NPOV or are unwilling to discuss the matter. This may help get rid of the more rabid POV editors.
Comments? I'm running on very little sleep today, so if I'm talking rubbish, please tell me!
Jake.
On Monday 07 February 2005 12:34, John Lee wrote:
Jake Waskett wrote:
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.
The problem is, groups like Stormfront have a whole different definition of what is NPOV.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])