On 7/27/02 3:12 PM, "Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" daniel@copyleft.no wrote:
And on a more personal note: Articles where matters are presented in a fashion I feel strongly is not NPOV (but where the author probably disagrees again - having used facts and reasonable language) tax my motivation to contribute to Wikipedia severly. Yes, it's kind of self centered, but I think it's a very natural and common feeling to be discouraged with the project in its entirety when you come into contact with a flame war you probably don't have the resources to fight (and would also like to avoid, since your expertise lies elsewhere). An easy way of registering your disagreement would be very beneficial in this regard - and importantly, I don't think it would be very destructive from the opposite point of view. If I wrote an article I considered to be very good and also NPOV, and someone marked it as controversial, it would probably annoy me slightly, but I wouldn't feel that my work was going to waste, or that the Wikipedia project was doomed. :) Okay, that was rather drawn out, but you get my point.
Feel free to use the Talk to register your opinion on the article. It's part of the reason it's there.
I can't see what help a checkbox will do other than to let people defuse a bit of frustration meaninglessly. It doesn't add quality or information to the entry.
Meta-commentary should be restricted to Talk, I believe. Otherwise it gets to be a very slippery slope into semantic porridge.
On a personal note, I too am driven to frustration by many of the articles. E.g. the "history of the United States" articles seem like they're straight out of 1950s textbooks.