[WikiEN-l] Foundation and History

[InkSplotch]

On 8/2/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But in every related article?  What does it have to do with the
> Wikimedia
> > Foundation?  Does it need to be in Wikipedia's article, History of
> Wikipedia
> > article, Wikipedians With Articles article (or is it a list?), Jimmy
> Wales'
> > article, Larry Sanger's article, Citizendeium's article, the Essjay
> > Controversy article.
>
> You have two options that I can see. Give a brief description of the
> dispute (one or two sentences) or say something quite vague and
> undisputed ("[[Larry Sanger]], who was with Wikipedia from the
> beginning, ...") and let the reader follow the link if they want to
> know more.
>
>
This is pretty much the approach I've tried taking.  However, there are some
editors who are ardent that it be one particular way.  There's been an RFC
already, and extensive discussion currently collected on the talk page of
Larry Sanger's article.  I'm beginning to think consensus is on my side
here, but there's one or two who will edit war about it to no end...now, or
weeks from now, they'll be back to make changes to the disputed form.

So, I'm at a loss.  I don't want to fight this, I've tried discussing it but
it's like talking to a wall.  In fact, since I've found more on this
dispute, it looks like QuackGuru was cutting and pasting previous quotes of
himself to our recent conversation.  From what I've found this morning, I
think theres enough to take it before arbcom.  I don't want to.  It's
essentially a content dispute that's so near to our hearts its driving
editors to disruptive behavior.

Is there a way, another fora than arbcom, where the community can discuss
this issue - decide how we'll use the word "founder" and settle it for
good?

InkSplotch


-- 
"Stercus, stercus, stercus, moritus sum!"