--- Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
stevertigo, I am *very* with the problem you are describing. I don't think WP:CITE itself is the cause of the problem. WP:OWN is. The cause of the problem is Article Squatters. I suggest to completely change the meaning of WP:OWN.
I think this is a valid point. The rest however fails float test, if only because having twenty articles about the same thing is as pointless as anything Ive ever heard. The proplem is ownership, how does instituting *formal ownership* solve that problem?
Somebody mentioned Wikinfo, which IIRC splits its articles according different general points of view. That's at least workable and in extreme cases might resemble our /draft method, but ultimately the goal is integration according to NPOV.
A lot of people can't handle that basic old NPOV rule which is why we have citenazis in the first place. Cite, V, etc. are part of a static model of Wikipedia which strives for "perfection" but fails to the dynamic communal process by which we built the Wikipedia to begin with.
At one point, our most sophisticated policy after NPOV was the "leave something for people to do" guideline. Wikipedia of course has a bigger "ownership problem" than just the ownership of articles.
-Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com