On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
This is essentially a non-helpful idea, since the
criteria for what is a
controversial issue is itself a controversial issue. Better would be to look
for objective criteria, such as pages that are edited unusually frequently,
or have had multiple massive rewrites, etc.
I disagree. It's not a way of magically removing controversy. It's also not a
way of keeping a registry of controversial issues. It's a way to isolating a
disagreement into a single flag or link that (in extreme cases) antagonists
can flip on or off in a flamewar. Once the article becomes NPOV enough for the
people who disagree, the flag can be turned off.
As opposed to massacering the contents of the article again and again. A
lightning rod, so to speak.
Yes, articles that shouldn't ble flagged could end up being flagged. But too
much skepticism / caution in reading is better than too little. And this is
after all a message to the casual reader as much as it is a signal between the
authors.
I believe it would helt tremendously to defuse opinion wars (a kind of cease
fire).
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.
The criteria for what is a controversial issue would be simple: That someone
who has the effort to spare to edit the article, finds it non-NPOV enough to
mark it. Whoever.
-- Daniel