It exists, but generally cases fall into a grey area where resolving the content issue is not vital. For example in the Skyring arbitration, the problem is not the content he wants to put in the articles, it is the persistent way he keep arguing and going over the matter again and again, despite his failure to convince the others who edit the articles. It is necessary to look at the article and see whether the article is no good or inaccurate without the material he wants to insert.
Much the same happened in the climate change arbitration. it is not so much that Cortonin is wrong but that he insists on being wrong like a bulldog. Again it helps to analyze the content he insists on to see if if adds to the article or introduces confusion about the underlying scientific principles.
The Njyoder case involves [[gender]], an article which makes sense in a subcultural context but not much sense to Njyoder. A content inquiry as to whether within the subcultural context there there is significant content which might go into the article is helpful.
I think the test is whether without some reference to content questions, the disputes remain unresolved and unresolvable under a theory that one opinion is as good as another. LIke I said earlier, a theory of a flat earth is fine in [[flat earth]] but out of place in [[astrophysics]].
Fred
On Jun 18, 2005, at 7:08 AM, Dan Grey wrote:
To get a handle on how much content-arbitration is really needed, perhaps the people who feel it's required could list some examples of when it would have been useful.
Or perhaps we're discussing a problem that doesn't exist?
Dan
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l