[WikiEN-l] WP:3RR

Thu Nov 18 06:09:34 UTC 2004

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:06:15AM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
> 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

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.

Of course, in reality, I can't imagine a high traffic page like
evolution only having one person opposing.

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.

Shane.