Daniel wrote:
>Also, the existence of such a page, and some links to it, doesn't mean all
>possible non-NPOV pages at Wikipedia would have to ble tagged, in some giant
>operation...
>
>So:
>
>* A controversy flag doesn't really impede an article.
>* It doesn't add work for anyone.
>* It saves work and time for both sides in a dispute.
>* It "lightning rods" away undue emotional, immediate rewrites of articles.
>* It signals to the audience that not everyone on Wikipedia is satisified
> with the way the particular article is presented. (IMO, very valuable
> information.)
>* It would affect a very limited number of articles.
>
>Is it still such a bad idea?
>
>-- Daniel
I think so, sorry. :-)
*It's more complicated than what we're doing already, and for uncertain benefit.
*People will just have to get over their immediate emotional responses if they wish to write NPOV about controversial topics--that or avoid writing about those topics. Vigilance in this area is required, and yes, I've had my own transgressions on this front.
*So far, talk pages have been used to indicate dissatisfaction with an article's content; that has worked with considerable success.
*It would affect a very large number of articles, as my and your ideas of what is controversial are probably quite different. Suppose I cite "gun rights" and "capitalism", User:pRobertson cites "abortion" and "separation of church and state", someone else cites "taxes" and "Indonesia".... I fail to see how it's useful. It seems likely to become a convenient axe-grinding tool for partisans. And, really, does wikipedia need another list?
Just my opinion, of course, and--as always--feel free to disagree & elaborate. :-)
kq