On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
For example consider
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=50...
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:37 AM, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps but collaborative consensus or collaboration in general is relatively unheard of on the article in question. Feel free to glance at
the
talk page(s) if you like. You will see many examples of trolling,
personal
attacks, abusive sockpuppetry and other forms of disruption for the past many years.
Unless this issue is addressed first, it is rather pointless to discuss anything else.
- White Cat
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/04/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia does not pass judgement on history. We write about what
is
sourced
not what is *right*.
Wikipedia does editorial work to determine a collaborative consensus for the NPOV based on external research. In a way it is passing judgement, but no more than its sources accommodate for. There is no particular reason why both sides of an argument should be represented equally, NPOV#Undue weight might be an interesting read here.
There are many regrettable, and some actionable yet unactioned, abusive things in Wikipedia history logs. Attempting to track them all down and mete out preventive corrective action is an interesting idea, but impractical.
The idea that the article must be flawed because people are rude or abusive around it is not entirely novel, but I believe that having read the set of articles in depth, and being somewhat familiar outside the Internet with the state of scholarly research on the Armenian Genocides, that the articles are at a point of acceptable balance. The mainstream consensus conclusions are described in detail, and the Turkish revisionist interpretation is described fairly and accurately within the confines we use in other areas and in policy for undue weight to minority or fringe opinions.
If there are ongoing fights worth intervening in, in terms of abusive editing there, take it to ANI. I haven't got the time to sift around and see if it's worthy of admin attention to stomp on abusive editors this week. The article product is ok - if we need to deal with user behavior, please take it to ANI and provide detailed examples.