At 17:56 09/04/2006, you wrote:
Point of view editing is not a content dispute. The
policy is clear,
but some chose not to implement it. Without looking at the articles
involved it is impossible to tell what is going on.
Editing point of view is one thing. But getting a piece of
information into an article in the first place, based on policy, is another.
It's probably not appropriate to discuss a specific case in the
mailing list, (unless it might make a good example), though I'd be
happy to do it off-list, or perhaps point your to some talk pages?
Regards,
Ian Tresman
Fred
On Apr 9, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
At 16:28 09/04/2006, you wrote:
This is an on-going problem. It is done both by
those who
misunderstand the policy and by those with a point of view agenda.
The only reasonable recourse is to patiently discuss the policy. I'm
not sure the section on undue weight could be made any clearer. If
you are unable to negotiate successfully with those who have a point
of view agenda please use the dispute resolution procedure. Please
don't edit war with them.
This is the one policy where I have had almost a year of
"discussion". I have tried various dispute resolution processes, and
am invariably told that it is a content dispute (presumably because
nearly all policy relates to content).
It seems to me that policy should be sufficiently clear for editors
to implement, not decide by consensus?
Regards,
Ian Tresman
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l