The single editor needs to stop when he realizes the situation and use the
dispute resolution procedure rather than reverting and edit warring. And the
case needs to be taken up on that basis alone, not rejected until there are
a bunch of reverts and personal attacks.
By only taking cases which exhibit an emotional blowup, we, in effect,
demand that as a threshold requirement.
Fred
From: Brian M <brian1954(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: Brian M <brian1954(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:38:58 -0500
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content
Fred, I wasn't suggesting that the "weight of numbers" mechanism
method of dispute resolution is *desirable* in the case of content
disputes.
However, I'm afraid that is effectively the mechanism we have today,
as long as everyone stays within such policies as NPOV, NOR, civility,
etc, which define proper behaviour.
By the way, "weight of numbers" doesn't necessarily translate to a
vote. Despite no vote being taken, a single editor -- even one who
right and truth on his side (as he will generally believe) -- cannot
maintain his position against a larger number of editors on the other
"side", unless he violates the behavioural policies, such as 3RR. A
single editor insisting on his position against the consensus of other
editors will generally be considered to be edit-warring, even if he
happens to be right. Wikipedia policies generally work when truth
aligns with the numerical majority. Our policies have problems when
this is not the case. I think, fortunately, our policies generally
do work -- especially in the long run. But it isn't hard to find
exceptions in the short run.