[WikiEN-l] You really don't get it

[Matthew Brown]

On 4/20/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> I've been keeping a list of the various squabbles, skirmishes,
> kerfluffles, etc., that have occurred when Wikipedia articles and
> their subjects were at cross purposes for some reason.  They exhibit
> various degrees of reasonability and unreasonability both on the part
> of what was published on Wikipedia and what reaction the subject had
> to it.
>
> http://dan.tobias.name/controversies/cyber/wiki.html

Interesting list.  What I think is most of the time the case is that,
once the Wikipedia process latches on to an article, things more often
than not end up being handled pretty well.

The problem is worst when (1) nobody really watches the article in
question, and thus nobody notices libellous allegations; or (2) when
there are fanatical POV-pushers who are determined to keep an article
in a damaging form; or finally (3) when the allegations are actually
true and sourceable in reliable sources.

(any more problematic cases?)

For (1), better, perhaps more automated, procedures may help.

For (2), we perhaps need to have quicker ways of ceasing such
problematic behavior.

For (3), that's a little trickier.  Then we get into issues of
relevance, NPOV, and undue weight.  However, I believe that having
undesirable truths in a Wikipedia article is MUCH less damaging than
falsehood.

-Matt