On 8/30/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know. Sometimes expanding upon a policy or
making clear how it
applies in certain cases can be clarifying. I find the current NPOV
FAQ section to be very helpful in discussing NPOV with people new to
it.
An alternative approach is to consider policy somewhat analogous to
case law. Without stating that all decisions are prescriptive towards
future decisions (I doubt anyone wants to pretend that Wikipedia
decision-making is anywhere near as pretentious about its universality
as the US court system pretends to be, though isn't), having a list of
"here's one issue that was relatively important, and here's how it was
satisfied to most people's satisfaction" might serve as a way of
defusing future conflicts.
The problem is that once people think that a decision is going to
result in a president they tend to bring up a load of annoying side
issues.
--
geni