[WikiEN-l] Neo-nazis to attack wikipedia

Mon Feb 7 16:15:22 UTC 2005

A number of people have expressed concern that my proposal is too extreme. 
Well, I can't say I agree, but here's a proposal for a "gentler" approach:

Create and use a template for controversial articles, that says, in effect: 
"This is a highly controversial article. Before making any changes, please 
familiarise yourself with the discussion page, and add a comment describing 
your change and the justification for it." We should also link to WP:NPOV.

If that works, great! I doubt it will, but it won't hurt to try.

If it doesn't work, we can create a "3 unjustified edits rule", similar to the 
3RR, and enforced in the same way. This need only be applied to articles with 
the controversial header.

This should help to some extent, as forcing descriptions and justifications 
will slow editors down and may also create a deterrent for edits that authors 
*know* are NPOV or are unwilling to discuss the matter. This may help get rid 
of the more rabid POV editors.

Comments? I'm running on very little sleep today, so if I'm talking rubbish, 
please tell me!

Jake.

On Monday 07 February 2005 12:34, John Lee wrote:
> Jake Waskett wrote:
> >What about unanimous vote? If every editor had the ability to veto a
> > change, it could work. Nobody would (presumably) object to truly NPOV
> > changes, but at least one person would surely object to any attempt to
> > insert POV changes.
>
> The problem is, groups like Stormfront have a whole different definition
> of what is NPOV.
>
> John Lee
> ([[User:Johnleemk]])