[Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content

[Fred Bauder]

We do have a way to decide using [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. All
significant points or view are to be included in the article. There are fine
points to be decided, such at how much proportional space viewpoints are to
be alloted but our policy is quite clear on the main point. Most POV
disputes are centered around censoring opposing viewpoints and almost all
POV warriors are in the wrong.

The loudest and most determined?

Sometimes in default of anyone doing anything about it, yes, but not policy.

Majority?

On many subjects majority decisions return faulty decisions simply because
there is almost always knowledge most people either don't or won't grasp.

Most civil?

Being polite is not rationally related to command of knowledge.

Selected, non-involved editors?

If they were interested or competent with respect to the subject they would
be involved.

Fred

> From: Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com>, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing
> List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:50:14 +0200
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
> 
> Well, very simply speaking, we have to have _some_ way to decide what
> an article is going to look like in the case of conflict. There are
> various possibilities for that:
> * We take the POV of the one who shouts loudest
> * We take the POV of the majority of editor
> * We take the POV of the person with the longest breath
> * We take the POV of the most civil person
> * We take the POV of a group of selected editors not involved in the conflict
> * and perhaps a number more