slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Jon. The problem with the proposed
ruling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Xed_2/Propo…
is that it reprimands two editors because they asked for sources from
an inveterate POV-pusher, which is exactly what they should have done.
The policy is [[WP:V]], which says: (1) the burden of evidence lies
with the editor who adds the material (in this case Xed and an anon);
(2) one reason to ask for sources is if the edit is overly vague (it
was) and if the editor has a history of making inaccurate claims (Xed
does); and (3) any material not sourced may be removed by any editor.
Yep.
Jay and Viriditas were asking for sources for some
wild claims
inserted by an anon and supported by Xed, including that the film
Divine Intervention had not been nominated for an Academy Award
because of a "vigorous campaign by Zionist activists to bar the movie
..." There was no evidence at all of any "Zionist" campaign. There's
a
good ABC News article about the controversy, which was basically a
series of misunderstandings combined with a lack of insight into the
Palestinian situation.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=79485&page=1
One of the proposed findings of fact says that: "After Xed restored,
Jayjg demanded sources despite the fact that a simple Google search
gives 80,000 hits ..." But the Google search cited was for "'Divine
Intervention' academy".
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q…
Yep.
The proposed decision sends a message that editors
have to be careful
when asking for sources, which is the opposite of the one many of us
are trying to get across.
And that's why this proposed decision is not only mind-bogglingly awful
both as a way to treat good editors, but even *more so* for its
follow-on effects. It sets an incredibly awful example and it amazes me
that there are people this isn't obvious to at a glance.
- d.