So there is a policy to provide sources when requested? Then enforce it.

From: Elisabeth Bauer <elian(a)djini.de> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 05:30:53 +0100 To: El C <el.ceeh(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content El C wrote: Fine analysis. So there is a policy to provide sources when requested? Then enforce it. *greetings* elian _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I consider citing sources to be far more important that no original research.

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 07:03:20 -0500 To: El C <el.ceeh(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content Most content disputes are associated with *behaviour* that oversteps one or more Wikipedia policies, and while there is no arbitration or mediation process for content, there are numerous dispute resolution systems that do focus on behaviour. A problematic editor who is "wrong", is also probably violating the policies on "no original research", "cite your sources", and "neutral point of view". It also usually works out that a person who persists in adding invalid material to articles in violation of these policies will also violate the policies against "personal attacks" and on "civility". This isn't always the case, and unfortunately it often happens that the dispute becomes so heated that nobody maintains the moral high ground on these points. Nevertheless, I think most content disputes can be treated as behavioural issues and resolved on the basis of existing policies without anybody needing to decide the actual content issue. The [[Capitalism]] article is not a test case for content disputes because the problem editor has violated a number of Wikipedia policies, such as "cite your sources". A real test case would be one where a person was politely and civilly putting a kooky point of view into an article, while cheerfully admitting that it was only one of the valid points of view that must be presented under NPOV, and happily citing sources -- all kooky as well. As long as it was not original research, and there were some sources for it, however laughable, such a dispute could not be resolved without a decision on the merits. At present, the only mechanism for that is weight of numbers: the side with the most editors wins. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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.