[Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content

[Andre Engels]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:15:31 -0600, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> 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.

Still, this begs the question of what is a 'significant' point of
view. Also, as you say, there are those finer points. Do we show the
points of view as equals, or do we say "this is what most experts
think, but others say that"? Which is given first, or do we first
state the part that both agree on and only then the opinions? How much
should be written on a certain POV?

And then there are the arguments that aren't about POV at all, but
about inclusion (whether inclusing in Wikipedia as a whole or in a
particular article) or about the way Wikipedia is to look like.

Every day Wikipedia has many of those decisions. In many cases there
is just someone editing the way s/he likes it, and nobody who cares
noticing. In many other cases a short discussion gets to an agreeable
answer. But there still isn't anything to get to answer when it is
not.

Andre Engels