On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
For example consider
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=5…
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:37 AM, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps but collaborative consensus or
collaboration in general is
relatively unheard of on the article in question. Feel free to glance at
the
talk page(s) if you like. You will see many
examples of trolling,
personal
> attacks, abusive sockpuppetry and other forms of disruption for the past
> many years.
> Unless this issue is addressed first,
it is rather pointless to discuss
> anything else.
> - White Cat
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 04/04/2008, White Cat
<wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Wikipedia does not pass judgement on history. We write about what
is
> > sourced
> > > not what is *right*.
>
> > Wikipedia does editorial
work to determine a collaborative consensus
> > for the NPOV based on external research. In a way it is passing
> > judgement, but no more than its sources accommodate for. There is no
> > particular reason why both sides of an argument should be represented
> > equally, NPOV#Undue weight might be an interesting read here.
>
> > Peter
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
There are many regrettable, and some actionable yet unactioned, abusive
things in Wikipedia history logs. Attempting to track them all down and
mete out preventive corrective action is an interesting idea, but
impractical.
The idea that the article must be flawed because people are rude or abusive
around it is not entirely novel, but I believe that having read the set of
articles in depth, and being somewhat familiar outside the Internet with the
state of scholarly research on the Armenian Genocides, that the articles are
at a point of acceptable balance. The mainstream consensus conclusions are
described in detail, and the Turkish revisionist interpretation is described
fairly and accurately within the confines we use in other areas and in
policy for undue weight to minority or fringe opinions.
If there are ongoing fights worth intervening in, in terms of abusive
editing there, take it to ANI. I haven't got the time to sift around and
see if it's worthy of admin attention to stomp on abusive editors this
week. The article product is ok - if we need to deal with user behavior,
please take it to ANI and provide detailed examples.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com