[Wikipedia-l] Helga again

[Vicki Rosenzweig]

At 03:16 PM 8/30/02 -0400, you wrote:
> >I don't want to pick on Ed Poor, because I'm sure there are other
> >examples I could use.  But I think Ed Poor believes a lot of false
> >things.  I'm sure he thinks that I believe a lot of false things.
> >Maybe I think he's a nut.  Maybe he thinks I'm a nut.
> >
> >Fair enough, but he and I are both polite and reasonable, and I find
> >it hard to envision a situation where we couldn't agree on what an
> >encyclopedia article should say.
>
>What higher praise could one get? "Polite, reasonable nut". I like that :-)
>
>But seriously, isn't there any way to configure the software so that Helga 
>could contribute only when logged in? That is, ban her IP address, but not 
>her user ID (if you know what I mean)?
>
>Mav and others have told me that Helga's been a thorn in the project's 
>side for a year. But I think the way you've responded has been 
>inflammatory. No offense meant.
>
>Instead of hitting her over the head verbally with phrases like "she's at 
>it again" and "removed NPOV text" -- why not take a more low-key approach? 
>It's working for me in the Arab-Israeli conflict articles:

We tried that. It didn't work.


>"Removed to talk" -- concise, unemotional: clearly the text hasn't 
>disappeared but will be found on the talk page in a moment.
>
>"According to ..."
>"Some advocates claim ..."
>"Although most scholars believe X ..."

And I refuse to write "although most scholars believe Hitler was always a
Jew-hater, some people claim that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany first",
which is what we'd need to include Helga's theses.
-- 
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org