On 10/11/04 2:07 AM, "Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
- Be very inclusive. NPOV can only work if everyone gets a fair chance to
have their point of view included in an article (even if not the main article).
- Center discussions around issues rather than people. Conduct systematic
peer review in different categories for every article. Highlight unsourced/unattributed claims in the article.
- Facilitate forking. It should be easy to create and maintain forks of
controversial articles written from a specific group's point of views - not necessarily within the Wikimedia framework, but outside of it. Others can then take Wikipedia, Wikinews or Wikibooks entries and develop them according to their respective belief systems.
- Eliminate edit wars. The most obvious solution seems to be a "Ban to
talk page" feature that does not protect the whole page, but only forces the users involved in an edit war to discuss the issue.
- Faster response when people violate the rules, by randomly selected
trusted user committees or something similar. Milder, but quicker punishments. Less talk, more action.
2)-5) require changes to the software. Have patience, they will come. Some related proposals and documents are on Meta, particularly LiquidThreads and Wikiflow.
The number one thing that would help this is to support atomization. The more clearly defined the scope of the entry, the easier it is to find consensus and to discard chaff. As entries get larger, their scope broadens, and conflict, dispute, and confusion ensue.