Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: Phil Boswell wrote:
You're assuming that someone entirely unfamiliar
with Wikipedia should, when
alerted to an unsympathetic and possibly damaging article about them, be
able to understand when the mantra "anybody can edit" suddenly becomes
invalid, and furthermore deduce the alternate avenues of change which they
should pursue, all the while leaving a version of their article on display
which might well be somewhat distressing to them?
Bingo! Phil has it exactly right. The problem we are seeing, again and
again, is this attitude that some poor victim of a biased rant in
Wikipedia ought to not get pissed and take us up on our offer of "anyone
can edit" but should rather immerse themselves in our arcane internal
culture until they understand the right way to get things done.
I do not know what is going to change, but something BIG has got to
happen and SOON about this issue, because the amount of time it is
consuming for some of our best editors is getting way out of control.
I agree completely. The simplest and quickest BIG thing would be to make it VERY,
UNEQUIVOCALLY clear that consensus only applies to policy and guidelines, not to article
content. All to often, and despite the warning on the consensus page regarding groups
taking over articles, admins use consensus as the deciding factor to keep a version of an
article up that goes completely against verifiability or NPOV, violating NOR at the same
time by accepting the claims, arguments, and votes of the group.~~~~Pro-Lick
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with