[Wikipedia-l] Re: Contoversy flag on articles.

[Fred Bauder]

At 09:12 PM 7/27/02 +0200, Daniel wrote:

>And on a more personal note: Articles where matters are presented in a
fashion
>I feel strongly is not NPOV (but where the author probably disagrees again -
>having used facts and reasonable language) tax my motivation to contribute to
>Wikipedia severly. Yes, it's kind of self centered, but I think it's a very
>natural and common feeling to be discouraged with the project in its entirety
>when you come into contact with a flame war you probably don't have the
>resources to fight (and would also like to avoid, since your expertise lies
>elsewhere).

This phenomenon is a part of internet dynamics; you will be defeated by
those who are on wikipedia 16 hours a day and are aggressive. It is
discouraging. Even if your expertise lies in this area you still can't win
and have a life.

Some issues are simply not addressable from a NPOV. If billions of dollars
are being extracted from an activity which kills millions of people there
is no way the perpetrators and the victims are going to agree. One thing
that saves us now is that except for a few areas e.g. Israel, Palestine,
both sides of many controvesies don't have a strong contingent here. But as
Wikipedia succeeds that will change.

Fred Bauder