At 09:54 AM 8/5/02 -0400, Ed Poor wrote:
Locking a page is only a temporary solution to an edit war. It stops the
current battle, of course, but a better long-term solution is to teach contributors how to write from the NPOV. I'm not saying that this is an EASY solution, obviously. I myself have struggled mightily to learn how to write neutrally, and I still fail occasionally on subjects dear to me (such as Global Warming, which Axel has reverted in flames a few times :-).
I've stepped in from time to time, as in the Eisenhower controversy,
trying to show how information that veers away from the consensus can be included: usually by summarizing, creating a new article, or demoting content to an external link.
What do others think about the prospects for educating contributors to the
controversial pages, on how to write from the?
Prospects are dim in certain instances. Some folks have a lifetime half-life on certain fixed ideas. A crank usually has a narrow focus so even they can benefit from tips on technique. In instances where a government in engaged in war or serious domestic conflict Wikipedia is just a part of their psychological warfare operations, if they bother with us at all.
But I continue to think a good [[controverial issue]] page would be helpful.
Fred Bauder
| |But I continue to think a good [[controverial issue]] page would be | helpful. |
I wasn't a debater, and I haven't seen one of these things in awhile, but intramural debate topics are set in advance and teams are expected to be able to debate either side of an issue. Each topic comes with a sort of handbook on the topic, stating the main question, rebuttals, responses to rebuttals, all in a fairly standard format.
How about a similar setup for these tough issues with strong feelings, like so:
Y, the article, describing the general situation while maintaining NPOV
Sidebar: The debate about Y A-side B-side
That way, the A's could state their case and in true wikipedia fashion the B's could dive in on the A-side page and Talk:A-side and debate what the A's *really* stand for, and the same thing could happen on the B-side, with various points and rebuttals appropriately distributed. As a point became clearer and clearer (or time worked its magic) the point could be promoted to the NPOV main article.
Just saying "This is a controversial issue" is kind of a cop out, but some topics may never cool off, but the debate could be fairly presented in a reasonable context. Tom Parmenter Ortolan-88
PS - Whether Helga is a malign force or deluded patsy (I'd opt for someone who drank too deeply at the geneaology well), she doesn't have a clue as to what makes an encyclopedia article. Imagine an articulate, clever Helga.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org