----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Parmenter" tompar@world.std.com To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Cc: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 11:15 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Less than an outright ban
I missed 24, but in every other case there was a single article or an easily identifiable set of articles that were the locus of the trouble. Freezing those articles for a day, week, month, quarter, might have solved the problem.
Helga- Copernicus DW - Canadian noteworthies Lir - Columbus
Did we so much need an article this quarter on these three topics that we could tolerate the kind of abuse (let's don't mince words) that these people dealt out?
As for the "one other contributor" this is what I had in mind with my "master in chancery" proposal, not "police", just someone to filter the conflict before it got into an article.
Helga wasn't just Copernicus. She edited and wrote articles on many Central European historical issues from an anti-Polish, pro-Germanic POV, quasi historical point of view. Copernicus was just the last of many edit wars which she was involved in.
DW also caused trouble over French historical articles when others questioned his "One True Way" in much the same way as he did with the Canadian stuff. Trivial changes and a mite less arrogance on his part would have avoided the problems.
Freezing articles would not have changed the attitudes of these contributors, since despite the fact that trouble flares up over particular articles, it wasn't really a particular article that was the problem. The problem was Helga's Point of View and it is DW's and LIr's egos in my opinion.
Cheers
Derek