Rick wrote:
But what do we do in the future if an editor
insists on adding two
or three stores or restaurants and won't let the ads be removed?
Is it really an 'ad'? I'd say it's only an 'ad' if the
person
inserting it is trying to promote her or her own business, or the
business of a client, and that there's no reason for the information
to be there otherwise.
Of course even if it isn't an ad, that doesn't mean that it
necessarily should go in the article, but depending on the entire
context of the situation, perhaps it should.
I think it will only rarely ever be the case that there's an actual
irreconcilable difference between reasonable parties to a discussion.
Usually there will be a way to improve the article generally in a way
that is satisfactory to both sides.
If one party is actually being completely unreasonable, and will not
compromise, then of course it ends up eventually in mediation and
arbitration, right?
The problem in this kind of situation arises when an editor sees no
solution but to remove what he views to be offending material. The
person whose material is being removed understandably sees that removal
as an offensive act.
Some people tend to view some of this local information as
non-encyclopedic, but sometimes it is exactly what gives flavour to a
place. Even those of us who condemn the excesses of capitalism can
recognize that certain commercial enterprises play an important social
and cultural role in their respective communities. If one were to
extrapolate Rick's argument that the mention of the pizza restaurants
constitutes advertising, then we should also delete the Disneyland
article because it is effectively advertising for the theme park.
Imagine the arguments if someone tried to delete that article.
Ec