At 16:28 09/04/2006, you wrote: 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

At 17:56 09/04/2006, you wrote: 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

I would say that the vast majority of people who abuse it are people with an agenda. The point of it is so that we don't have pages and pages of Alex Chiu crap in [[immortality]] and [[teleportation]] and the like, or two entire books full of "how to goodbye depression" and "internal fenix" (sic) crap in the [[Eric Castenada]] article. The point is not so that we don't have two sentences about Flat Earthers or so that we don't have two sentences about people who believe GWB sucks. Mark On 09/04/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: -- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin

Hi! Easy to say so, when you talk chemistry... how are we supposed to present an history of political thought? Many of these ideas are still alive and present in the heads of the writers... And people having minority ideas often are more active on the net (and therefore in WPs), than people having a mainstream attitude. It's going to be them to make a vote about inclusion/exclusion. Besides, there is NO objective criteria for undued weight. Personally, I'd rather include more, then risk to find myself in the position of those 19th century scientists who avoided speaking about meteorites, because "obviously stones do not fly". A wiki is a collection of knowledge, as far as ideas, techniques and theories are concerned, space should be found for all of them. Then maybe you get to build a category out of what was meant to be a single article. But then, was it YOUR classification poor, or the article big? Bèrto

HiI No, because then you leave the reader to decide what is oppressive, and what is not. The reader ends up in making an interesting decision, but sadly gains no knowledge whatsoever about the subject of the article. When speaking of morals in the roman classical period, if you do not include a list of what was then considered as normal (pedophilia was, just to name one thing), most readers will get the word as "what is normal NOW". And no one will ever understand the deep affective meaning of a phrase like "tu quoque Brute, fili mii". It's exactly when speaking of different times/cultures that you need to give a clear picture of what local normality was. When you make an article on the american Weathermen movement you cannot simply say they were "left wings". Because the north american concept of being a left-wing is extremely different even just from its european equivalent, not to mention Africe and Asia. If you do not specify a context in an extremely precise way, you end up in creating confusion, instead of spreading knowledge. Besides, how are going to describe the internal debate in the feminists' movements? If we simplify their positions, they end up in being all the same, so it looks like different positions were due to ego-trips only. Leadership IS a matter, in describing the evolution of political/philosophical movements, but it cannot be awarded with a monopolistic role. Same applies to any history of the protestant movement, unless we want to just say they were "heretics". Just in the way we need to mention gravity, when speaking of physics, we need to mention phenomena that were at the very base of the construction process of an opinion/idea/ideal. We are going to have a very hard time in explaining why the Christian revolution took over the classical world, unless we explain its implied social consequences (the role of widows and the chance for slaves to get a human-like burial, just to name a couple of them). Things are always complicated. Making them look simpler it's the best way to tell blatant lies. Well, obviously not. I thought the whole discussion was started to deal with cases in which a part of the debate is totally removed. Depth of details may be chosen depending on what support they offer for further deepening of the matter, as long as all relevant details are there. That is: "there was a [[debate about flying stones]]", in which one shall explain what happened, and give the reader a flavour of the scientific thought during those times. No more than this. Takes a few strokes and does not hide anything. Text remains readable, who is not interested in flying stones can simply avoid the subject. Is there any difference among the two? A scientific theory is no more than a theory. That is, a useful OPINION. Until we can use it to make computations we do use it, then we throw it away to use a more suitable opinion. Put my signature here, too. Our role is into referring the matter, not into jumping in the discussion. BUT... by choosing waht to say and what to omit (like it or not), we do become an active part in the discussion. It's unavoidable, and it must be managed. This is why I oppose using the term NPOV altoghether. There simply isn't any such thing, so we cannot lie to ourselves and to the readers. Well... mostly, I'd build a cross reference table on [[pyramid]], and point the guys to all interesting sections, from technology [[lever]] to alternative science [[Von Däniken]]. And I would not forget history [[Napoleon]]. No need to write about this extensively in the article, just give the people a way to dig out what they look for. Then it's up to then to decide. They belong in the [[Von Däniken]] article, and should be properly covered there. Not censored or excluded, but simply orderly treated in the right place. Personally I'd never read [[Von Däniken]] , but this does not mean it cannot bring readers and potential contributors in. Any article is a hook, by which we fish fresh readers and contributors. [[playstation]] and [[Da vinci code]] will get you in much more people than [[epistemology]]. Yet, a small percent of those guys may end up in knowing what [[epistemology]] is, even starting their surf from [[playstation]]. This is way all correct information is useful, although I repeat, often the problem is that one begins to write [[Von Däniken]] text right in the middle of [[pyramid]]. Which is not undued weight, but a plain context error, which does not require censorship, but simply a new indipendent page. That's nothing but my humble POV, obviously. :) Bèrto

Hi! LOL we are actually saying the very same thing. But with a different wording :) See how difficult it gets, when we move from real examples to "politics"? This is way policies are always at a loss, when one begins to discuss them. They are so abstract that it's easy to think of whatever in the world. In reality, we end up doing the very same thing: putting infos on different articles and have the readers somehow informed of how they can get a deeper information level on the subject, if they need it. No, it's what google will do for the reader, if we do not do it ourselves. But ten again, I'm speaking about a link, not about a full-fledged text about all possible details. Something usual paper edition do with their "see also" annotations. We simply suggest the existence of related information. Then, info lists also do have an internal order, just as a search will give you a percent of subject relevance. I do not see any problem in having a jump-box stating three sections like *related info *minority views *odd things Once again, we do exactly the same thing. The main principle should be text readability. If the text is readable and can carry a basic and clear information level, then it's okay. Jump tables will help the reader towards more clear texts, depending on his needs/likings. Bèrto