On 11/08/2011 00:34, William Beutler wrote:
My take is that Wikipedia, for all its faults, dealt
with it very well. The
debate turned on several questions about what the very nature of what
Wikipedia is all about, and how the community worked to resolve a very
difficult case.
Not for us to say, here. But it should certainly be seen as a case
study, one for the policy wonks. My take has been that analysis _in
Wikipedia terms_ is the key to resolving the issue (i.e. to create such
reference material as should exist on enWP about the topic).
I'm sure I've made some mistakes, as one may
in trying to summarize 5 years
and 200,000+ words of debate about a highly contentious subject, but I'd
love to get any feedback from contributors here about both the long-term
prospects for this article / topic as well as anything I've described in the
3,700-word post linked above.
NB you have written RfA where you mean RfAr.
I hope this is the right forum for this message, and
I'd certainly be
interested in writing a follow-up if there's anything worthwhile to add.
Otherwise, comments on the post itself are more than welcome.
The forum is fine for general discussions of this nature.
Charles