There is conflict in the world, and therefore in Wikipedia (including this mailing list). For selfish reasons, people murder other people: a fight with a stranger in a bar, a family quarrel, clans fighting (Hatfield vs. McCoy), ethnic/national/religious groups fighting over land, people or ideology. There is no rule or procedure that will end conflict. When there is no love, fighting is inevitable.

Ironically, the 2 biggest areas of conflict on the Wikipedia are the articles about murder and hatred. The history of warfare and conquest in Europe is what Helga and Dr. Kemp were contending over. The aspirations of the Jewish people for a homeland (i.e., Zionism) and the largely Arab aspiration for a "Palestinian homeland", in the Middle East, is a cauldron ever bubbling over and scalding us all. Debates over what is or is not "anti-Semitism" or "racism" consume us with their flames.

I think what Jimbo and Larry were hoping is that co-operating contributors could collaborate on creating neutral articles: i.e., articles which did not champion any side but rather described the various points of view.

We keep getting away from the neutral stance -- all of us, me included -- and lapse into championing the "right" point of view. All right-thinking people agree that XYZ is bad and PQR is good. Yeah, sure, all except that significant minority who insists on something else, and the cauldron boils over again.

Experts will continue to stay away in droves, as long as we bicker amongst ourselves. To increase from 200 talented amateurs to 300, 400 or 500 people with even the sparsest sprinkling of subject matter experts, we must do something to make Wikipedia a more congenial environment.

I'm not sure how to do this. I'm only sure that we must.

Ed Poor