Sometimes we do, but sometimes we lose our nerve. Most of the arbitration committee are elected. Insisting on inclusion of unpopular points of view is not conducive to maintaining popularity. Announcing a high-minded principle is one thing, living by it - another.
Fred
On Jun 6, 2005, at 6:08 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
steven l. rubenstein said:
I do not believe that disputes over content are irresolvable, but I do think that there are POV warriors who insist on including content even if it comes from narrow and perhaps even disreputable sources, and deleting content that is the product of good research.
Arbcom can and does rule in such cases. In the Robert the Bruce case, for instance, arbcom affirmed the principle that "Removal of references from articles is generally inappropriate" by 8-0 and "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view" by 9-0.
These were also reaffirmed in the case of Robert Blair, who was involved in the same dispute on the other side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Robert_the_Bruce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Robert_Blair
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l