There does need to be some sort of final say on matters of NPOV and opinion. Concensus cannot always be achieved, and many contentious pages are controlled by a POV lobby which alert one another when a vote w partican potential comes along.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Don't judge the content, but the user conduct. If people keep editing without discussing it and trying to reach common ground, you can take the case because of conduct. It's the controversial cases in which large numbers of people disagree that are the problem. Unfortunately, those take time, and can't be properly handled by a small group of people (they're probably divided on it themselves).
--Mgm
On 6/4/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Mark Pellegrini (mapellegrini@comcast.net) [050605 05:23]:
The Arbitration Committee is seeking public commentary and suggestions pertaining to an ongoing problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC
Everyone should read and consider this. We've had *lengthy* discussions on this matter on wikien-l.
Basically: most of the really poisonous arseholes have in fact been kicked off en: Wikipedia, and when new ones show up they are ejected in reasonable order. (In a lot of cases, it's not even reaching the AC as they're dealt with as obvious vandals and trolls by WP:AN/I.) So now the AC is getting a lot of grey-area cases that are really a proxy for a content dispute. What to do about this?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l