[WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution broken?

[Ray Saintonge]

WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
>  
> In a message dated 4/29/2008 11:25:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
> moreschiwikiman at hotmail.co.uk writes:
>
> My own  view is this: Wikipedia's dispute resolution process works fine when 
> it's case  of two or more good-faith contributors engaging in a genuine debate 
> over  something where debate is meaningful. The process is hopelessly 
> inadequate to  deal with editors who act tendentiously or not in good faith, or in  
> circumstances where there is no meaningful debate to be had  (homeopathy).>>
>
>
> -------------------
> This is a no-starter because of your phrasing.
> Those who have followed the debate as "journalists" and encyclopedists,  
> instead of adherents understand that the point of the homeopathists isn't to  
> conquer all the science articles.  But the point of the non-homeopathists  is to 
> destroy all the homeopathy articles.  Hardly the same position.
>  
> We are not a science project.  We are a project to document all human  
> "knowledge", to say homeopathy is not knowledge is tendentious.
I essentially agree, but it is less about non-homeopathists than about 
anti-homeopathists.  Some of us who may have nothing to do with the 
practice are nevertheless respectfull of those who do.  NPOV is 
maintained  by *fairly* representing the views of homeopathists, and 
briefly recognizing the premises under which a large number of people 
reject the practice.  It does not require repetitive rejection of 
detail.  That just makes for tedious reading.  It is not for us to judge 
the validity of homeopathy, but to provide verifiability for both sides 
of the conflict.

Ec

Ec