I'm not so sure that creating a "stable" version is a good idea. We
just need to have more means of dealing with POVpushers. There's *far*
too much tolerance given to people with extremist views and the desire
to push them on the encyclopedia. If I was to create a sockpuppet
tommorrow and attempt to rewrite all the topics in an area to support
my point of view, it'd take *months* to get rid of it, and *months* to
return the articles to any sort of neutral state. This isn't healthy,
and we've seen the sort of articles it results in.
There's no need to sell out the idea of a freely editable article. But
if you can't edit neutrally, after repeated warnings, you shouldn't be
here - and we need an ArbCom that is willing and able to keep the
POVpushers in line.
I believe the "alternate article" problem is something that we may
have to encode in policy, as well. We've seen stuff like [[Occupation
of Palestine]] kept, despite it being a rant piece that duplicated
existing articles. On the other hand, [[Australian left history]]
(duplicating [[Communist Party of Australia]]) was VFDd, which was
something, at least.
Survival of the fittest is not the way to create excellent articles.
There's a reason why we have all of one featured article on American
politics, despite the interest levels, and so few other ones on
contentious topics.
- ambi
Show replies by date