It exists, but generally cases fall into a grey area where resolving
the content issue is not vital. For example in the Skyring
arbitration, the problem is not the content he wants to put in the
articles, it is the persistent way he keep arguing and going over the
matter again and again, despite his failure to convince the others
who edit the articles. It is necessary to look at the article and see
whether the article is no good or inaccurate without the material he
wants to insert.
Much the same happened in the climate change arbitration. it is not
so much that Cortonin is wrong but that he insists on being wrong
like a bulldog. Again it helps to analyze the content he insists on
to see if if adds to the article or introduces confusion about the
underlying scientific principles.
The Njyoder case involves [[gender]], an article which makes sense in
a subcultural context but not much sense to Njyoder. A content
inquiry as to whether within the subcultural context there there is
significant content which might go into the article is helpful.
I think the test is whether without some reference to content
questions, the disputes remain unresolved and unresolvable under a
theory that one opinion is as good as another. LIke I said earlier, a
theory of a flat earth is fine in [[flat earth]] but out of place in
[[astrophysics]].
Fred
On Jun 18, 2005, at 7:08 AM, Dan Grey wrote:
To get a handle on how much content-arbitration is
really needed, perhaps the people who feel it's
required could list some examples of when it would
have been useful.
Or perhaps we're discussing a problem that doesn't
exist?
Dan
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide
with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l