On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 koyaanisqatsi(a)nupedia.com wrote:
I think so, sorry. :-)
*It's more complicated than what we're doing
already, and for uncertain
benefit.
I fail to see how it's more complicated. You simly add a link to "controversial
issue" on the page you think is perhaps not totally NPOV. When people feel the
article has become NPOV again, they simply remove the link.
*People will just have to get over their immediate
emotional responses if
they wish to write NPOV about controversial topics--that or avoid writing
about those topics. Vigilance in this area is required, and yes, I've had my
own transgressions on this front.
The scenario is not that I sit down and write passionately, and that I let my
excuse for doing this be a "controversial issue" flag. The scenario is that I
bump into an article that I don't consider NPOV at all, but that I don't have
the time or the effort to fix then and there. Instead of having to accept the
current presentation until I myself can write a more balanced one (or indeed
instead of passionately slamming down my own opinion, and perhaps
unwisely deleting content), I simply flag the article. Later on, using talk
pages and civilized debate, me and the author can work out a new presentation.
And mean while I don't have to be unduly worried about visitors (straight from
Google, reading what calls itsef an _encyclopedia_) getting a strongly biased
article.
The flag would not brand the article as objectively non-NPOV, but mean that in
the opinion of someone (able and willing to go through the effort, and to use
the civilized procedure, instead of deleting or rapidly re-writing), the
article is not entirely NPOV.
*So far, talk pages have been used to indicate
dissatisfaction with an
article's content; that has worked with considerable success.
Again, the audience doesn't read talk pages. This would not replace talk page
discussions, just work to civilize them. "We agree that the article is in
dispute, and we're talking about it here."
*It would affect a very large number of articles, as
my and your ideas of
what is controversial are probably quite different. Suppose I cite "gun
rights" and "capitalism", User:pRobertson cites "abortion" and
"separation of
church and state", someone else cites "taxes" and
"Indonesia".... I fail to
see how it's useful. It seems likely to become a convenient axe-grinding
tool for partisans. And, really, does wikipedia need another list?
It _could_ affect a very large number of articles, but I don't think it will.
Again, it's not suppoed to mark articles that deal with controversial issues in
themselves - but articles where the controversial issue hasn't been treated
fairly. This is, I'm glad to say, a rarity on Wikipedia. Most articles aren't
about controversial issues. Those that are, are generally very well presented.
And what if partisans use it for axe-grinding? It doesn't mess up the article,
as they might otherwise want to do. It doesn't mark the article as useless.
And finally, it is not a list.
-- Daniel