On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:52:42AM -0400, The Mangoe
wrote:
There is another problem with using the projects
as core organizing
points.A lot of them are organized around interest in a particular
controversial subject, and therefore present POV issues. I imagine
that most Christianity project members are Christians, and that most
Anglican project members are Anglicans, and so forth. And then we get
to the LDS project and the LGBT project and we would end up with, um,
problems. (Not to mention REALLY sending Merkey of on a tear.)
I think this is overly pessamistic and does not agree with my experience.
People who form a Project that invariably will attract people who "belong"
in the sense you suggest, step over backwards to ensure that their local
guidelines fit the core policies. They are often more critical of
articles on non-notable topics than other editors might be. I think we
should all accept good faith here. I much bigger problem is the way some
editors who do not understand the topic really muck up the article. They
can join a Project but the Project will sort them out.
Bduke
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Brian Salter-Duke b_duke(a)bigpond.net.au
[[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia.
Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity
Projects are a good place to find knowledgable people--only
deletionists fear knowledge introduced. One word from the fishes guy
led to an acceptable keep all around on an article.
KP