Is it maybe soon time to make a little modification to Wikipedia's policy on protection, to allow contentious articles to be long-term protected - in order to stimulate the use of talk pages instead of edit wars?
The article on Gdansk is once again protected. Of course it's the wrong version that's fixated for some time now.
Not only the wrong version in my personal view, but the wrong version from the perspective of numerous serious attmpts to solve the conflict in accordance with Wikipedia customs.
The character of the long-standing conflict is not much different from that of the recently discussed Pinochet article. Maybe the chief difference is that it does not touch the interest of the English speaking world, and therefore attracts not much attention from the Wikipedia community.
However, many contributors have put much time and effort into the dispute solving process; and as being one of these contributors I start to feel that all that energy is badly rewarded.
/M.L.
Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
I would really like to see that article divided into two articles, one called Danzig, one Gdansk, with the Danzig article about the long German heritage, the article Gdansk about the present Polish city with historical emphasis on Polish matters. I know this is Wikinfo philosopy but why can't we try it out here in this one case?
Fred
From: Magnus Link ruhrjung@yahoo.de Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:24:49 +0200 (CEST) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] semi-permanent protection of (very) contentious articles
Is it maybe soon time to make a little modification to Wikipedia's policy on protection, to allow contentious articles to be long-term protected - in order to stimulate the use of talk pages instead of edit wars?
The article on Gdansk is once again protected. Of course it's the wrong version that's fixated for some time now.
Not only the wrong version in my personal view, but the wrong version from the perspective of numerous serious attmpts to solve the conflict in accordance with Wikipedia customs.
The character of the long-standing conflict is not much different from that of the recently discussed Pinochet article. Maybe the chief difference is that it does not touch the interest of the English speaking world, and therefore attracts not much attention from the Wikipedia community.
However, many contributors have put much time and effort into the dispute solving process; and as being one of these contributors I start to feel that all that energy is badly rewarded.
/M.L.
Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 05:43:37 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I would really like to see that article divided into two articles, one called Danzig, one Gdansk, with the Danzig article about the long German heritage, the article Gdansk about the present Polish city with historical emphasis on Polish matters. I know this is Wikinfo philosopy but why can't we try it out here in this one case?
No, Wikinfo philosiphy is to have the "sympathetic point of view" and allows multiple articles which cover the same content but with different sympathies. On the other hand, there's nothing really against Wikipedia "philosophy" (insofar as it exists) which is incompatible with having two articles about different aspects of the same thing (the city now, the city historically), which would cover more or less mutually exclusive areas.