I suggest that there will most likely be problems with rigidly enforcing the 3RR, but I'm sure we can find solutions to those too, and I think the new problems (if there indeed are any) will be better than the current situation of some looney getting away with insanely repeatedly reverting. Zoney

Surely you are joking? We guage the truth by the number of people who believe it? Mark --- Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini(a)comcast.net> wrote: >"Sometimes particular articles attract several edit >warriors, and often it's >two or three against one. If that one person "uses >up" his three reverts, >the others still have several to go before they are >also banned." > >That's the whole idea of the 3 revert rule. If >multiple people >are reverting you, and no one is coming to help, >then you're >probably in the wrong. > >--Mark > >

Surely you are joking? We guage the truth by the number of people who believe it? Mark

So you think that in science pages, for example, space should be given to different theories based on their relative popularity? This will wreak havock on evolution, not to mention gravity! Are you really serious? Mark

--- Shane King <wikipedia(a)dontletsstart.com> wrote: But if we take seriously the idea that if many people believe it it should be given space, you must do that, surely. Mark

Hi - ok, let me give an example. Let's suppose that the religious right were able to muster a relatively small number of people to edit here on the evolution pages. Are you saying that, if there are a large number of people editing on the 'side' of that, then it should go in? If not, can you clarify what you did mean? Thanks, Mark

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:06:15AM -0800, Mark Richards wrote: Well, there are a few scenarios here: If what they're putting in is something they can demonstrate is believed by a large number of people (ie the wider community, and not just the few editing), and they write it in such as way that it doesn't violate the NPOV policy, then yes. If they fail to write to the NPOV policy, then what they're saying should still go in, but it will need to be reworked. If they're pushing a very minority point of view that's not widely held in the greater community, then it's probably one of the few cases where the fact that there are a large number of people on one side isn't indicative of the validity of their additions.

My point isn't that the number of editors believing a point of view makes it valid to go in the article. My point was that if we have a large number of editors thinking something should go in the article, and only one person against it, then more often than not the majority is going to be right. It's just simple probability, if you think about it.

So you think that in science pages, for example, space should be given to different theories based on their relative popularity? This will wreak havock on evolution, not to mention gravity! Are you really serious?

Mark Richards wrote: space their We can simply contextualize what we're talking about. If an article is in the context of a scientific theory, it should say what the scientific viewpoint on it is. If other communities disagree, these could be mentioned briefly. If there is a lot to mention, a separate article such as [[creationism]] or [[controversies involving evolution]], or something of that sort, is warranted. Sometimes this is hard to do, but I think usually it's possible. To take one example, something like [[clinical depression]] could describe the orthodox psychiatric view of clinical depression, with a mention that it's controversial and a link to a more general article and/or an article specifically about the controversy. If this had been 1970, when orthodox psychiatry considered homosexuality a mental illness, we'd have a similar case, where we'd have [[homosexuality (paraphilia)]] describing psychiatry's take on it and linking to [[homosexuality]] or [[gay]] or something of that sort describing controversies and other views on the matter. The problem with a hardcore scientism point of view is that scientists are not always right, as the homosexuality example illustrates. -Mark _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l