Tom Haws wrote,
steven l. rubenstein wrote: If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior anyone who insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite sources, must be enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a good encyclopedia? Or do you have a different goal, Tom?
I appreciate the response. I believe your frustration is honest, and I think (hope) we all share it. I think that the most sane approach is to realize that Wikipedia simply isn't set up at this time to accomplish the level of editorial control you contemplate. That doesn't mean it isn't an appropriate goal, just that we have to work pragmatically with the system we have at the moment.
Yes, I personally would be even more patient. That may not be the "right" answer, but my attitude is maybe I can 1) learn something from that "original researcher" 2) help him feel good about contributing to Wikipedia, and 3) show him by example how Wikipedia works at its best and what NPOV means. As much as it hurts at times, I simply cannot afford to take excessive ownership in articles.
And so I continue to believe that repeated deletions of the same thing (I personally wouldn't repeat myself over twice except on a talk page) are indeed the beginning of the problem. And I apologize for the flippant tone of my response.
"If you keep on doing what you've always done, you'll keep on getting what you've always got." "If at first you don't succeed, try a different approach."
Tom Haws
I don't think the problem is well phrased as repeated deletions, although that can happen. The more frequent problem is repeated insertions of material which is poorly sourced, represents a minority position (acceptable but not to the point it dominates the article) or amounts to advocacy or propaganda for a point of view. While in certain areas editors can and do gang up, generally when most of the other editors are deleting something, citing Wikipedia policy, giving a variety of reasons why the material is unacceptable, that is a clue that maybe something is wrong.
The notion of a clue is central. While it is frequent that Wikipedia editors who are up to something themselves give out a variety of spurious reasons as cover, it is important to consider the reasons people are giving for what they are doing. For example, I have a distinct proclivity to make stuff up as I go along, making an original definition for [[truth]] or [[reality]] etc. At some point I began taking "no original research" seriously. Not at first, but eventually I read the policy and took a good look at what I was doing. I still sin, but I could be said to "have a clue" at this point.
There is a certain Tao involved here. If you are fighting hard, you are probably fighting for something not worth fighting for in a Wikipedia context, usually a point of view.
Fred
From: Thomas Haws hawstom@sprintmail.com Reply-To: Thomas Haws hawstom@sprintmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:35:23 -0700 (GMT-07:00) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content
my attitude is maybe I can 1) learn something from that "original researcher" 2) help him feel good about contributing to Wikipedia, and 3) show him by example how Wikipedia works at its best and what NPOV means. As much as it hurts at times, I simply cannot afford to take excessive ownership in articles.
And so I continue to believe that repeated deletions of the same thing (I personally wouldn't repeat myself over twice except on a talk page) are indeed the beginning of the problem.
Thomas Haws wrote:
Yes, I personally would be even more patient. That may not be the "right" answer, but my attitude is maybe I can 1) learn something from that "original researcher" 2) help him feel good about contributing to Wikipedia, and 3) show him by example how Wikipedia works at its best and what NPOV means. As much as it hurts at times, I simply cannot afford to take excessive ownership in articles.
Patience is commendable. But an effective POV warrior can depend on that in the hope that your patience will turn to abandonment, and his lack of sources will be forgotten.
Put in educational terms what you seem to be saying is, "Don't insist that little Johnny learn anything because it might damage his self-esteem."
Ec