Hi all, Second new topic today! Wow...
Anyway, so I've stumbled into a POV war. Basically a topic that has apparently recently attracted a small number of very determined individuals with different points of view on the liquidation of a student organisation. At least one of the editing parties was a major player in the actual events, and possibly others. A general lack of knowledge, or respect for, Wikipedia conventions and editing policies is present.
I'd really like to get a neutral, heavily sourced, informative article out of all this. However, there is a lot of destabilising reverts, deletions, additions of unsourced material, personal attacks etc going on.
Does anyone have any advice to offer? How do you tell people that they can't suddenly wade into a Wikipedia article and use it to rewrite history? How do you tell people that removing a merge-to tag isn't a question of rights, it's a question of good faith? What do you do when someone removes carefully added material, without descending into an edit war?
Basically, where do I go to send these people to Wikipedia 101?
(I'm deliberately not mentioning the name of the article, but if anyone's that curious, you'll find it quickly).
Steve
On 3/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Second new topic today! Wow...
Anyway, so I've stumbled into a POV war. Basically a topic that has apparently recently attracted a small number of very determined individuals with different points of view on the liquidation of a student organisation. At least one of the editing parties was a major player in the actual events, and possibly others. A general lack of knowledge, or respect for, Wikipedia conventions and editing policies is present.
I'd really like to get a neutral, heavily sourced, informative article out of all this. However, there is a lot of destabilising reverts, deletions, additions of unsourced material, personal attacks etc going on.
Does anyone have any advice to offer? How do you tell people that they can't suddenly wade into a Wikipedia article and use it to rewrite history? How do you tell people that removing a merge-to tag isn't a question of rights, it's a question of good faith? What do you do when someone removes carefully added material, without descending into an edit war?
Basically, where do I go to send these people to Wikipedia 101?
(I'm deliberately not mentioning the name of the article, but if anyone's that curious, you'll find it quickly).
Steve
Well your meant to go in and try and talk to the participants and calm them down and get them to negotate. This can work well. Or it can fail completely.
Article RFCs can work if you get enough people. Using what links here can also be another option for getting univolved people with at least some interest involved.
-- geni
On 3/8/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Well your meant to go in and try and talk to the participants and calm them down and get them to negotate. This can work well. Or it can fail completely.
Sounds like, "when negotiating with a terrorist, try and get him to calm down" :) What I mean is, I don't think I can manage to achieve that by myself...so...
Article RFCs can work if you get enough people. Using what links here can also be another option for getting univolved people with at least some interest involved.
...perhaps an RFC would be a good idea in a week or so. More neutral people probably is the way to go for a start. While I'm "semi-neutral" on the topic I do have my own interest, of course...
Steve