homey2005(a)sympatico.ca wrote:
The debate and voting has been dominated by
various interests - it
would thus be best for the community if a broader cross section of
people including disinterested and neutral parties, reviewed the
proposals and had their say.
Well, I tried to read through some of that, but frankly it looks
like a
huge mess, which is probably why only people who have strong
opinions on
the subject are weighing in.
The biggest problem with the whole debate, in my opinion, is that a
lot
of it isn't really about Wikipedia at all, but instead about the
subject
itself, which doesn't belong on a Wikipedia talk page. People seem to
be arguing, for example, about whether certain Israeli policies
constitute "apartheid", which it is not our job to determine---the
issue
is whether reliable/respectable sources describe them as such, and if
so, how to write an article summarizing that debate, and how to title
and situate that article to be maximally neutral and useful to our
readers.
Instead it seems to be a morass of internet op-ed columnists
weighing in...
-Mark
It is an attempt to reframe the debate. The possible effects of
reframing the debate and to what extent that is a conscious strategy
would make an excellent article.
Fred