Poor,-
According to my reading of the edit history of
[[Augusto
Pinochet]],
both 172 and VV engaged in a "more than 3 times" reversion war.
The edit war is mostly about whether the intro should state that the
1973
coup was "US backed", with some (primarily 172) arguing that this is
an
indisputable fact, and others (primarily VV) holding that it is
controversial and therefore needs to be written in NPOV "many
believe"
style. Majority opinion is on 172's side, and Encarta also uses the
"United States backed" phrase.
I initially agreed with VV that some compromise was needed, but last
week
new evidence was revealed in the form of a transcript of a
conversation
between Kissinger and Nixon, shortly after the coup, in which
Kissinger
flat-out stated "We helped them" and Nixon responded "That's
right".
In my
opinion, in combination with the sum of the evidence (including a
CIA memo
which states that Allende should be overthrown with a coup, and that
the
American hand should be "well hidden"), this justifies the phrase
"United
States backed". VV sees no reason to change his position.
172 has long proposed a compromise, namely a footnote behind the
"United
States backed" to clarify what it means, but VV has ignored that
compromise. I have worked with him on another compromise intro with
the
"many believe" phrase, but I feel this is no longer adequate in
light of
the new evidence.
Both 172 and VV have edit warred repeatedly on the article in
violation of
policy. In addition, there have been a number of personal attacks.
I'm against banning either of them from Wikipedia as a whole, but a
3
month ban from editing [[Augusto Pinochet]] may be a good idea. The
sad
result of these edit wars is that the article has been protected for
much
of its lifespan, which is obviously completely against the spirit of
a
wiki.
I think that a quickpoll was held on the matter when quickpolls for
three-
revert violations were still in effect. The result was a vote for
banning
VV but not for banning 172. This is one of the reasons people,
including
myself, have become skeptical about the procedure: it ends up as a
popularity contest. If we have a three revert rule, everyone should
have
to respect it.
I've looked at the matter and I agree with Erik on this. I've never
been keen about the 3-revert rule because it accomplishes nothing. A
50-revert rule would do no better. The state of an article when the
warriors have reache the threshold might just as well be determined
by a
toss of a coin. After each has had his three reverts they wait until
the next day and have three new reverts each; that accomplishes
nothing
either.
The side which provides reference and sources in an argument should
be
given preference. Opposition to those sources is valid, but that too
needs some basis in reality. It is not enough to oppose something
because it would cause embarassment to one's favoured side. NPOV is
best attained when we can accept substantiated information contrary
to
our own point of view. It makes an article much easier to read than
one
sprinkled with weasel words..
Ec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org