[WikiEN-l] agenda promotion, was: Re: Original Research versus Point of View

[Geoff Burling]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Robert Dodier wrote:

> --- slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The only reason this stuff hasn't spread like wildfire throughout
> > Wikipedia is because a number of editors have opposed them since they
> > first started last May (not always the same group of editors, because
> > editors get worn out and give up) and so the material is reasonably
> > contained. But it's an exhausting job. If you want to join in, you
> > are more than welcome, because one or two of us could do with a
> break.
>
> This discussion points up what seems to be the greatest
> hazard and roadblock to Wikipedia: the current editorial
> model simply cannot cope with determined agenda promotion.
>
> In the absence of agenda promotion, Wikipedia works great.
> For 99% (or more) of the articles, the "anyone can edit anytime"
> policy works just fine, and produces good content.
>
> However some of the most important (or popular, at least)
> articles fall in that tiny fraction. GW Bush, Reagan, Israel
> and Palestine come to mind. What I see is that WP can get in
> the neighborhood of a great article, but can't ever get
> there. It's like driving across town to see a movie only to
> have edit warriors grabbing the steering wheel every time
> you try to park, so you end up circling the block forever.
>
I had much the same thought today. After all, we mark a number
of articles with {{NPOV}} or {{disptued}}, so why not create
a category for articles where the normal rules of behavior
on Wikipedia are replaced with more stringent ones actively
monitored to enforce compliance?

Articles would then be moved in & out of that category much as
we vote on articles at {{VfD}} or for Featured Article status.
The more stringent rules would then be set up with the goal of
hammering out compromise language & ending these interminable
disputes -- while adhering to the goals of NPOV.

At the same time, this new approach should only be done if it
adds a negligible amount -- or no -- extra burden to the ArbCom.

I've spun out a few different mechanisms for how these zones
could work, but it's far more important to see if there's a
consensus on Wikipedia that this is an idea worth trying first.
And I have to admit I'm not entirely keen on the idea myself:
telling people that certain parts of Wikipedia are under
"martial law" somehow just doesn't fit with the image *I* have
for this  project.

Geoff