This is the key point, I think. We don't have an absolute definition of neutrality. We don't even have a "I know it when I see it" kind of system. Neutrality -- everywhere -- is a work in progress. Now,

That's exactly right. All this group would be looking for are good-faith efforts to edit in accordance with the NPOV policy. It's not an attempt to control content, but behaviour. Perhaps we should change the title to reflect that.

*Sam Korn* smoddy at gmail.com <wikien-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Neutrality%20enforcement%3A%20a%20proposal&In-Reply-To=7c402e010905081322n210b417p376e7dc413f750bf%40mail.gmail.com> *Fri May 8 20:37:10 UTC 2009* This is the key point, I think. We don't have an absolute definition of neutrality. We don't even have a "I know it when I see it" kind of system. Neutrality -- everywhere -- is a work in progress. Now, SlimVirgin recognises this, which is why the proposal reads "However, looking at an editor's contributions as a whole, it should be clear to any reasonable, and reasonably well-informed, onlooker that the editor is regularly and substantively trying to be fair to both sides." That is obviously an attempt to move away from requiring neutrality and towards requiring a good-faith effort towards neutrality, which is the only way the proposal could work. That's exactly right. All this group would be looking for are good-faith efforts to edit in accordance with the NPOV policy. It's not an attempt to control content, but behaviour. Perhaps we should change the title to reflect that. Yes, it could be gamed, but it would be such a hassle for the gamers that only the most determined would do it, and the most determined won't be stopped by any process we put in place. If people think the mailing list is too cabalistic, we can get rid of that. The question is whether the spirit of the proposal might work. The details can always be changed. Also, bear in mind that the proposal is that this would be an *experiment* regarding the I/P articles, because nothing else has worked. It could be time-limited to ensure it doesn't turn into a permanent fixture, or get expanded, without further community input. Sarah _______________________________________________ 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

Certainly is true that one side is nationalistic and self-centered and the other is undereducated and lacking in conceptual sophistication. But how does it help our discussion to to say either of these things?

2009/5/8 stevertigo &lt;stvrtg(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: The trouble with ethnic conflict articles is that, rather than a few problem editors, there's an effectively infinite stream of partisans. (For whatever reason: local education is often partisan rather than NPOV?) So, even though a core of opinionated-though-neutral editors accumulates, there's an eternal stream of people who don't know and don't care about NPOV or Wikipedia principles in general - as far as they're concerned, someone is being WRONG on the Internet.

Well, at least English language training can help, at least to give people a foundation. And for those with sufficient English proficiency and the interest to come and participate, Wikipedia can give them an education - one way or another. It's in everybody's interest that such education be less "enforced" and be instead more enlightening, and that's why I think people aren't so interested in concepts of "enforcement" as they are in collaboration.

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Durova &lt;nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; wrote: Certainly is true that one side is nationalistic and self-centered and the other is undereducated and lacking in conceptual sophistication. But how does it help our discussion to to say either of these things? -SV