On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, The Cunctator wrote: 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

On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Fred Bauder wrote: (Replying to Fred, but including points from other replies too.) These are not the issues I'm talking about. I'm talking about the issues that most likely are adressable from a NPOV, but aren't adressed that way today. To remedy such articles is a lot of work, and the controversy flag wouldn't be a replacement for such work. Instead, it would be a civilized way of registering ones position that the article is NPOV - not primarily to the author, but to the audience (the audience doesn't read talk pages). An earlier poster convinced me that a separate database flag would just be silly, but a standard "controversial flag" page, that certain such articles linked to from one of the first lines - I seriously think that would help. Also, the existence of such a page, and some links to it, doesn't mean all possible non-NPOV pages at Wikipedia would have to ble tagged, in some giant operation... So: * A controversy flag doesn't really impede an article. * It doesn't add work for anyone. * It saves work and time for both sides in a dispute. * It "lightning rods" away undue emotional, immediate rewrites of articles. * It signals to the audience that not everyone on Wikipedia is satisified with the way the particular article is presented. (IMO, very valuable information.) * It would affect a very limited number of articles. Is it still such a bad idea? -- Daniel