[WikiEN-l] No benefit from violence

[Poor, Edmund W]

Little Dan observed, 

> I don't usually have that experience of the two sides 
> balancing. I usually find that many of the articles about 
> Israel are either violently for Israel (by RK) or violently 
> against (by Stevertigo). 

I agree, although others do not.

Some people think that 2 opposing sides can battle it out, and let the
best man win. A sort of zero-sum game.

But I don't think Wikipedia can work like that. Balance can't come
without stability.

A stable article is one which any side in a controversy can look at and
say, yes, this article describes my side accurately and does not give an
unfair advantage to the other side.

Sometimes I want to propose a rule that, when someone goes on a POV
crusade, they should be told not to edit any more until they can "state
the other side's case to the satisfaction of the other side" (to
paraphrase famous success coach Steven Covey).

Ed Poor