--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
If those three were enforced harder - particularly verifiability - we wouldn't be having most of those problems. One of the charges agsinst Robert the Bruce in the present arbitration case is systematic removal of information and references - whether that's found to be the case, I think it indicates this sort of thing will not be regarded well by the Wikipedia community.
Where there are serious differences of POV there is bound to be controversy over what is or isn't considered to scientifically supported (and verifiable) information and a relevant reference.
If and when the neo-nazi onslaught arrives they will no doubt offer "peer reviewed" information and "relevant" references and be prepared to defend them to the death. They will also (like some other single issue groups) demand the right to have their opinion heard and stated (as per one interpretation of NPOV). If they have planned their assault well and have learnt from other such POV pushers they will know that numerous subtle changes, (as opposed to large bold edits) made by four or five regulars who rotate the strike (so to speak) and get the "game" of tag-team reverting off pat, will carry the day.
That will leave Wikipedia with the option of having to "destroy" the articles in order to "save" the encyclopaedia � that or ignore the principle of assuming good faith and start banning people on the least suspicion of being �one of them� � you know �cultural revolution� stuff.
It is surely not merely the issue of whether information or references are removed from articles (as that would be self evident) but rather whether in each specific instance where it has occurred (by whomever) it was justified.
Rubenstein said: �But sometimes the reverts have to do with serious differences over content. I think this is an important distinction, because in such cases having a night, a couple of days, even a week to cool down, will not change things. Moreover, our other dispute-resolution mechanisms (mediation, arbitration) are not well-suited to resolving conflicts over content.�
And: �It is the content that concerns me, and my sense is that our process for resolving conflicts focusses on behavior rather than content. I just do not see this as useful here. So what if Jalnet2 limits himself to two reverts a day? As long as the content of his edits are wrong, they just have to be deleted.�
Reverts and deletes are a symptom � address the cause and the symptoms disappear.
Robert
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com