geni wrote:
On 1/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
I can't comment on Esperanza because I have
not been following that debate.
I do think it's wrong to extrapolate the experiences regarding
Alternative medicine into all sorts of unrealated projects. In the
present context all we would be asking them to do is to deal with
alternative medicine topics. There may be contentious issues there, but
I think it's reasonable to expect that both sides will remain more or
less on topic.
Both sides? You appear to have missed the point of that project back in the day
Why shouldn't both sides need to stay on topic. Admittedly I chose not
to participate in that debate because I was not ready to do the research
needed to properly defend the closed-minded attacks from the opponents
of alternative medicine. Now, we have a simple notability. Even a
practice that has been unanimously rejected as having no medical value
can remain historically notable.
The potential
for every WikiProject to have it's own internal politics
is certainly there, but why is that so bad? Is it really any better to
throw these issues into a communal sewage treatment plant than a local
septic tank? It might be easier to find a lost diamond ring in the latter.
Establishing an effective monoply is always bad. At the moment a
wikiproject knows that if they are less than ideal people will just go
around them. Give them power that outsiders have no easy way to
disspute and the various problems wikiprojects have become a lot more
serious.
Who said anything about a monopoly? Or that they have any new
"powers"? Or that outsiders would not be able to participate?
Ec