Ok, Jimbo, you're right. Let me amend my earlier statement: on the whole, the system is working, but in a few articles, it is not. Now, the question is this: what can be done about the problem?
One solution that I favour is to have permanent protection on targetted pages, and have a nominated admin apply changes that are agreed upon by vote on the article's talk page.
What do others think?
Jake.
On Monday 07 February 2005 01:48, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Jake Waskett wrote:
The simple truth is this: if Wiki is to become a credible, serious encyclopaedia, we *must* maintain NPOV. These groups *oppose* NPOV.
Yes!
What can be done about it? The present system is simply *not* *working*. It'll handle the occasional abuse here and there, but the day-by-day, determined, and methodical twisting of articles to suit some activist agenda seems impossible to stop.
I am aware of only 3 instances where this (organized groups trying to undermine NPOV editing) is a problem: LaRouche-related articles, circumcision, and this new thing with the stormfront postings and VfD co-ordination.
I think this is a serious problem, and one which we have long feared. But we need not overreact. The system *is* working in the main, and where there are new problems (such as those aptly described by Slim Virgin in discussion the pseudo-NPOV of the LaRouche edit warriors), we can be confident in our ability to devise new solutions.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l