[Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content

[Fred Bauder]

Believe it or not, we still don't enough active involved editors in many
areas. I think many things will work out when we have more input from a
broader base. For example about 4 people regularly edit the Tibet article,
they fight a bit, but a few dozen actual Tibetans would change the mix.
Likewise the half dozen who edit in the communist area would face a new
dynamic if a few dozen who actually lived under communism weighed in.

This is true of our administrative and policy areas too, a very thin group
in terms of numbers and diversity of viewpoint.

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 18:30:01 +0200
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l