Let's say that:
There is an article about a relatively controversial subject that, for some reason, has not yet been through any massive edit wars. Maybe the subject is fairly new, the word in itself is pretty new so no one has actually written much about it- until now.
There are two people editing this article. You get involved a bit, and try to create what you feel is a neutral version. This makes one side immediatelly assume you belong to the Enemy. This person creates a version that says "some people say this, some people say that" but it is badly written, the reasoning is strange, it is hard to understand what he really means. Both sides are getting loud and argumentative, more concerned with being right than with what is logical and not. The subject is probably emotional to them. Maybe one side is louder than the other; maybe not.
You feel that hey - this isn't going to lead anywhere.
What do you do? Do you just leave the article and let them fight? But then, what happens if all the "good forces" just leave whenever problem arises? Should you ask someone to try and talk to these people? Is there a standard way of handling things like this, or is the only thing to do to stay away and wait until things are so bad that the article gets locked?
/Habj
For a start, on the talk page you might try to identify who the some people are and where they say these things. If the sources for both views can be identified, they can then be attributed. If the real source is one of the Wikipedia editors that is more troublesome.
Fred
On Jun 22, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Habj wrote:
Let's say that:
There is an article about a relatively controversial subject that, for some reason, has not yet been through any massive edit wars. Maybe the subject is fairly new, the word in itself is pretty new so no one has actually written much about it- until now.
There are two people editing this article. You get involved a bit, and try to create what you feel is a neutral version. This makes one side immediatelly assume you belong to the Enemy. This person creates a version that says "some people say this, some people say that" but it is badly written, the reasoning is strange, it is hard to understand what he really means. Both sides are getting loud and argumentative, more concerned with being right than with what is logical and not. The subject is probably emotional to them. Maybe one side is louder than the other; maybe not.
You feel that hey - this isn't going to lead anywhere.
What do you do? Do you just leave the article and let them fight? But then, what happens if all the "good forces" just leave whenever problem arises? Should you ask someone to try and talk to these people? Is there a standard way of handling things like this, or is the only thing to do to stay away and wait until things are so bad that the article gets locked?
/Habj _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If all attempts at discussion fail, you can always try dispute resolution.
--Mgm
On 6/23/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
For a start, on the talk page you might try to identify who the some people are and where they say these things. If the sources for both views can be identified, they can then be attributed. If the real source is one of the Wikipedia editors that is more troublesome.
Fred
On Jun 22, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Habj wrote:
Let's say that:
There is an article about a relatively controversial subject that, for some reason, has not yet been through any massive edit wars. Maybe the subject is fairly new, the word in itself is pretty new so no one has actually written much about it- until now.
There are two people editing this article. You get involved a bit, and try to create what you feel is a neutral version. This makes one side immediatelly assume you belong to the Enemy. This person creates a version that says "some people say this, some people say that" but it is badly written, the reasoning is strange, it is hard to understand what he really means. Both sides are getting loud and argumentative, more concerned with being right than with what is logical and not. The subject is probably emotional to them. Maybe one side is louder than the other; maybe not.
You feel that hey - this isn't going to lead anywhere.
What do you do? Do you just leave the article and let them fight? But then, what happens if all the "good forces" just leave whenever problem arises? Should you ask someone to try and talk to these people? Is there a standard way of handling things like this, or is the only thing to do to stay away and wait until things are so bad that the article gets locked?
/Habj _______________________________________________ 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
I think we need better answers. I am familar w cases like this, and where they end up. How about its a large POV lobby instead of a single user, and they are trying to POV an ancient and contentious topic, chasing off any and all NPOV users who come along?
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/23/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If all attempts at discussion fail, you can always try dispute resolution.
--Mgm
On 6/23/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
For a start, on the talk page you might try to identify who the some people are and where they say these things. If the sources for both views can be identified, they can then be attributed. If the real source is one of the Wikipedia editors that is more troublesome.
Fred
On Jun 22, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Habj wrote:
Let's say that:
There is an article about a relatively controversial subject that, for some reason, has not yet been through any massive edit wars. Maybe the subject is fairly new, the word in itself is pretty new so no one has actually written much about it- until now.
There are two people editing this article. You get involved a bit, and try to create what you feel is a neutral version. This makes one side immediatelly assume you belong to the Enemy. This person creates a version that says "some people say this, some people say that" but it is badly written, the reasoning is strange, it is hard to understand what he really means. Both sides are getting loud and argumentative, more concerned with being right than with what is logical and not. The subject is probably emotional to them. Maybe one side is louder than the other; maybe not.
You feel that hey - this isn't going to lead anywhere.
What do you do? Do you just leave the article and let them fight? But then, what happens if all the "good forces" just leave whenever problem arises? Should you ask someone to try and talk to these people? Is there a standard way of handling things like this, or is the only thing to do to stay away and wait until things are so bad that the article gets locked?
/Habj _______________________________________________ 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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You don't want to be in a revert war with a pack of POV editors, but they still need to cite references and present all sides of a question. If they won't, don't try to fight it out at the article, but simply insist on dispute resolution. Hopefully the Arbitration Committee, with your help, can get to the bottom of what is happening.
Fred
On Jun 25, 2005, at 6:56 PM, Jack Lynch wrote:
I think we need better answers. I am familar w cases like this, and where they end up. How about its a large POV lobby instead of a single user, and they are trying to POV an ancient and contentious topic, chasing off any and all NPOV users who come along?
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/23/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
If all attempts at discussion fail, you can always try dispute resolution.
--Mgm
On 6/23/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
For a start, on the talk page you might try to identify who the some people are and where they say these things. If the sources for both views can be identified, they can then be attributed. If the real source is one of the Wikipedia editors that is more troublesome.
Fred
On Jun 22, 2005, at 8:07 PM, Habj wrote:
Let's say that:
There is an article about a relatively controversial subject that, for some reason, has not yet been through any massive edit wars. Maybe the subject is fairly new, the word in itself is pretty new so no one has actually written much about it- until now.
There are two people editing this article. You get involved a bit, and try to create what you feel is a neutral version. This makes one side immediatelly assume you belong to the Enemy. This person creates a version that says "some people say this, some people say that" but it is badly written, the reasoning is strange, it is hard to understand what he really means. Both sides are getting loud and argumentative, more concerned with being right than with what is logical and not. The subject is probably emotional to them. Maybe one side is louder than the other; maybe not.
You feel that hey - this isn't going to lead anywhere.
What do you do? Do you just leave the article and let them fight? But then, what happens if all the "good forces" just leave whenever problem arises? Should you ask someone to try and talk to these people? Is there a standard way of handling things like this, or is the only thing to do to stay away and wait until things are so bad that the article gets locked?
/Habj _______________________________________________ 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
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
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com
I think we need better answers. I am familar w cases like this, and where they end up. How about its a large POV lobby instead of a single user, and they are trying to POV an ancient and contentious topic, chasing off any and all NPOV users who come along?
Jack (Sam Spade)
Um, isn't that what every single POV editor claims when a large number of other editors reject his POV edits?
Jay.
That's true, but in at least one area, articles which concern the Israeli-Palestine conflict, it is not unlikely that one editor may be repeatedly reverted by a group of POV editors. Perhaps other instances exist.
Fred
On Jun 25, 2005, at 10:17 PM, JAY JG wrote:
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com
I think we need better answers. I am familar w cases like this, and where they end up. How about its a large POV lobby instead of a single user, and they are trying to POV an ancient and contentious topic, chasing off any and all NPOV users who come along?
Jack (Sam Spade)
Um, isn't that what every single POV editor claims when a large number of other editors reject his POV edits?
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In articles which concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, don't most edits consist of POV editors from both sides repeatedly reverting each other? ;-)
Jay.
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net
That's true, but in at least one area, articles which concern the Israeli-Palestine conflict, it is not unlikely that one editor may be repeatedly reverted by a group of POV editors. Perhaps other instances exist.
Fred
On Jun 25, 2005, at 10:17 PM, JAY JG wrote:
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com
I think we need better answers. I am familar w cases like this, and where they end up. How about its a large POV lobby instead of a single user, and they are trying to POV an ancient and contentious topic, chasing off any and all NPOV users who come along?
Jack (Sam Spade)
Um, isn't that what every single POV editor claims when a large number of other editors reject his POV edits?
Jay.
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