In a message dated 6/22/2008 11:54:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, delirium@hackish.org writes:
This is a somewhat anomalous situation, because it's really a single fact that seems to be neither negative nor positive being omitted, and the interpretation that it's non-neutral because others include this fact is a bit of a stretch.>>> By your own above its "...neither negative nor positive..." so what *is* it? Neutral? The interpretation is not that "because others include" it that makes it non-neutral. I believe the posted is stating that because other reliable third-party sources include it, that makes it NOR. So the burden should be on those who wish to suppress it, to make explicit why they do so. Just one example of where the false nutshell "do not harm" harms the work of the project. A better nutshell would be "do no additional harm (beyond what's already been done), but go ahead and state the harm that's already been done."
We are not the first submitters of harm, that does not mean we bury our heads in the sand to that harm.
In a message dated 6/22/2008 11:54:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, delirium@hackish.org writes:
There are much more direct and worrying examples, mainly the omission of widely-reported, well-sourced negative information which tends to make the resulting articles non-neutral in that they're more positive than the consensus view we're supposed to be summarizing.>>
The problem is, that on some articles you get a small vocal and strident group, including involved admins, who see nothing wrong with bending policy to support their view, and using their tools against those who would read policy-as-writen. And then you get the majority who are like ".... whatever, its not worth fighting about."
So the project is harmed because we do not report negative or personal points that really would go into a biography of a living person.
Unfortunately, having been involved in this issue for a while, I don't see any solution. And now ArbCom does the project no good and probably a great harm by giving even more power to those who wish to squelch the evidence instead of reporting it fairly and evenly. There is a reason why we have wheel wars. Giving such a large degree of freedom to the first admin who happens to jump in and hampering others who might have a more unbiased view, is not the way to address the issue. Typically the first admin is involved already.
Rather, this procedure seems like a way to drive even more contributors away from the project.
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)