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

[David Gerard]

Geoff Burling (llywrch at agora.rdrop.com) [050121 20:31]:

> 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 must say I've been tempted to propose that all edits on en: from the
Middle East in general be blocked ...

(though it turns out the worst POV-warriors edit from the US. Bah!)


> 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.


Per-article would lead to article forks (even tho' forks get a rapid
"redirect or delete" response from VFD).

Per-category is susceptible to people removing an obvious categorisation.

Per-topic is a bit subjective; the ArbCom places such restrictions on
troublesome individuals as needed, but not as yet on given topics even for
well-behaved editors.

Having (whatever)s voted in and out of such restrictions is an interesting
and plausible idea, though. If we can work out a way to do it.


- d.