If you and I were the people involved, we could reach a compromise.
Indeed, for about 90%of the people who care about the issue, we could
reach a compromise. This leaves 2 ways of proceeding:
remove or silence the most difficult 1%.
compel them to reach a compromise--which amounts to binding
arbitration of policy
Arb com can of course do the first of these. That's a way which on
other topics has not proven the least successful--there is always
someone else to continue the position.
Or make policy. I know it pretends not to have that capability, but
they've done it before. It may not have done it very well, but they've
done it. As for what the community will accept, I predict it will
accept what works, provided it does work.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:12 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:03 PM, David Goodman
<dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What harms the public view of Wikipedia is not
articles on minor
subjects, or on matters i anyone will understand are of significance
only to fans. What really harms the perceived quality of Wikipedia is
promotional and inaccurate articles. almost everyone can realize that
the content of a reference work may include things they do not
themselves want--but they do expect it to be both honest and accurate.
We could decide either for or against the detailed coverage of popular
culture, but what we cannot tolerate is the diversion of effort in
dealing with this. There is of course an obvious solution, which is to
silence everyone who does not agree with me, but that's not going to
fly. What we need is some way of not just forming a compromise but
having it persist--otherwise any solution will be back to the same
point in a few months. Arb com apparently does not think it is capable
of this, but I don't see how else it can be done--they should try a
little more boldness. Since they'll be criticised whatever they choose
to do or not to do, they might as well decide.
Arbcom isn't supposed to be there to make policy.
The diversion of effort dealing with this has been part of a long drawn out
war over inclusionism or deletionism. Which has never settled to a
consensus.
Your belief that we cannot tolerate the diversion of effort is common, but
also *extremely* dangerous... This is a community, the community is
divided, has some fairly fundamental disagreements over what it wants to be,
and the politics and dynamics and discussion over those fundamental
disagreements are how we stay one community and avoid forking or driving
away a large part of the community.
Part of the problem here is that we have two sets of idealists (purist
exclusionists, who think that non-serious topics should not be considered,
and purist inclusionists, who think that everything must be), who naturally
talk past each other as they have fundamental goals disagreements, combined
with two sets of realists (realist inclusionists who are deleting primarily
over quality and RS issues, and realist inclusionists who favor the
gradualist approach on article quality and prefer to work on article
quantity for the time being) who are talking past each other when they could
engage more productively.
Along with many in the middle who wish no part in duking it out.
Perhaps there is fruitful discussion to be had in getting the two realist
camps to cooperate. There is nothing gained among either realist camp by
denying that a number of the popular culture articles have been woefully
badly sourced and unencyclopedic, or in denying that popular culture
articles are popular and desired by a lot of article editors (and presumably
readers, assuming that readership follows editorship interest trends).
Coming to a cooperative resolution of the "Delete vs Improve" problem would
get us enough of the way there that setting both the purist camps on fire
and hearing the lament of their women would become a credible and possibly
legitimate way to solve the problem.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG