We do have a way to decide using [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. All significant points or view are to be included in the article. There are fine points to be decided, such at how much proportional space viewpoints are to be alloted but our policy is quite clear on the main point. Most POV disputes are centered around censoring opposing viewpoints and almost all POV warriors are in the wrong.
The loudest and most determined?
Sometimes in default of anyone doing anything about it, yes, but not policy.
Majority?
On many subjects majority decisions return faulty decisions simply because there is almost always knowledge most people either don't or won't grasp.
Most civil?
Being polite is not rationally related to command of knowledge.
Selected, non-involved editors?
If they were interested or competent with respect to the subject they would be involved.
Fred
From: Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com Reply-To: Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:50:14 +0200 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
Well, very simply speaking, we have to have _some_ way to decide what an article is going to look like in the case of conflict. There are various possibilities for that:
- We take the POV of the one who shouts loudest
- We take the POV of the majority of editor
- We take the POV of the person with the longest breath
- We take the POV of the most civil person
- We take the POV of a group of selected editors not involved in the conflict
- and perhaps a number more