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(a)sprintmail.com>
Reply-To: Thomas Haws <hawstom(a)sprintmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:35:23 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)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.