From: Timwi timwi@gmx.net Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:

...

...

    Isn't that just going to wedge the door open for every disputed
    article to
    end up with multiple versions?

Well, what would be so terrible about that?

In addition to what Daniel Mayer already said: What's also wrong with that is that a visitor trying to find information on a particular topic shouldn't have to make up their mind on which article to consult. In particular, they shouldn't have to be faced with multiple articles that contain contradictory information.

Timwi

Not to harp on this too much, but let's carry this a little further. Wikipedia makes one think quite a bit about the nature of authority and trust. We already have articles that state different points of view within the same article. In such a case, the reader is faced with "contradictory information" within a single article. Nowhere do we say that Wikipedia must, on every topic, avoid "confusing" the reader by "staying on message" or "singing from the same hymnbook."

We tolerate discrepant points of view within a single article, I think, because it is clear _at a glance_ at the article that a) the topic IS contentious and there IS more than one point of view, b) the points of view are clearly identified and described.

The problem arises only in special cases. Those where the topic is especially contentious, the topic is really too big to present all points of view at full length in a single article, and the editors representing each point of view are so antagonistic that we want to try to keep them out of arms' reach of each other. It's not something that readers will encounter all the time. And most of the time, they will know that the topic is contentious before they even look it up. (Hey, they may well be looking it up to muster ammunition for their own point of view).

We want the reader to be able to _find_ all the information, no matter how they search for it. We want the reader to _see instantly at a glance_ that there are multiple points of view and what they are. We want to encourage the reader to read all points of view, and we want to supply all point of view with a level playing field.

Is there REALLY no possible way to do this with a split article, by proper combinations of naming conventions, links and wording?

So... to take a truly contentious example... let's consider the case of "Ellis Island, NJ" vs "Ellis Island, NY". Let's suppose there is no way to build a stable article that presents both points of view in the same article, because the history is just too bitter.

Well, what about this. Suppose "Ellis Island, NY" and "Ellis Island, NJ" are both redirects. This makes them equally easy to find and puts them both on an equal footing. They are redirects to a page which I'll call the "master page" that's got about a screenful of well-chosen language, that says: a) The correct term is disputed. b) The disputed terms are "Ellis Island, NY" and "Ellis Island, NJ." c) Wikipedia takes no position on which is correct. d) Here are the two articles.

Now, give those two articles sorta complicated names, maybe "Ellis Island/ POV/NJ and "Ellis Island/POV/NY" to make sure that they will usually be found only via the master page, and do whatever's necessary to make sure that Google indexes only the master page.

And insist that each of these two articles BEGIN with a very short summary of the other point of view and a link to the other article, and that they END with a short paragraph encouraging you to read the other article.

E.g. Ellis Island/POV/NJ opens "This page presents the point of view of those who believe that Ellis Island belongs to New York. There are those who believe that it belongs to New Jersey because of the historical florbmigast as laid down by frammis court in decision 2.718(e)3.14. This opposing position is described _here_." Main article text goes here. Article closes, "Now that you have read the New York point of view, you may wish to read the New Jersey point of view _here_."

And symmetrically on the Ellis Island/POV/NY article.

In other words, _for those few topics on which it is truly necessary_, isn't there an acceptable way to do this?