"Stephen Bain" wrote
That seems common sense to me too. All we need to say
about conflicts
of interest is "try to recognise your own biases, be open to others
who apprehend biases, and don't let your biases get in the way of
editing neutrally".
Entrenched POV editing is something which is a recognised problem from the early days, and
for which we have no complete solution.
The way it works now, roughly speaking, is that we can throw out POV editors who
cannot/will not respect sourcing requirements, and who cannot/will not adhere to community
norms of decent behaviour. If people can stick within those two things, then they probably
are de facto of good standing here. Even if they use selective citation to make an article
lie through its teeth, which is quite possible and the basis of all skilful propaganda.
Adding a 'conflict of interest' guideline is a further way of cutting down on
heavy POV slants. Like the other things, it works on an 80-for-20 basis: it will not deter
the real agenda-pushers who wish to subvert our coverage, but it will have an impact, on
people who came and cluelessly thought that open editing meant complete freedom to act
here.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit
www.ntlworld.com/security for more information