Chad Perrin (perrin(a)apotheon.com) [050208 08:25]:
David Gerard wrote:
>>particular perspective with identified
adherents. Thus, if Stormfront
>>troopers swarm in and add some biased information as though it were
>>gospel, rather than actively oppose it, editors should simply . . . edit
>>it. Tidy up the language, make it non-repetitive, collect it in one
>>section, and label it as a particular perspective.
>I'm sure S*ll*g was very pleased with the
results ;-)
I think I missed a reference, there.
<whisper>Look at the history of [[Sollog]] some time ...</whisper>
Search for it independently, then. If you don't
find a reference, edit
it out if need be WITH A NOTE to the effect that it is unsubstantiated
at this time, and will be re-entered at such time as it can be
substantiated (note probably delivered both on the talk page and in a
note for the history page). Editing other people's contributions out
should include justifications, anyway, and should not be done as a first
resort, in my considered opinion. Don't edit what someone else has said
without being positive you know the reasons for what came before your
edit, even if your own edit requires attempts at independent verification.
I find that with a new, hotheaded but potentially sincere editor,
commenting out a dubious addition (HTML comments - start "<!--" and end
"-->" ), starting the comment with a request for a reference, produces
better results than just deleting material. It gives them a better idea of
the standard to work to.
Besides, if their heads explode you'll have
reduced the population of
people introducing problematic edits into controversial articles.
I'd rather convert them into NPOV pushers ;-) The Arbitration Committee has
recently reaffirmed that even the worst editors are to be regarded as
theoretically redeemable!
>Really, I've found they're really bad at
checkable references on even the
>simple stuff - e.g. "This organization believes ..." It's actually
really
>annoying.
I certainly don't disagree with that. Activists
do tend to have that
problem, and it definitely does tend to be annoying.
"WE DONOT THINK THAT YOU ZOG ACTIVIST"
"So do you have a checkable reference for what your organization does
believe?"
"LOOK IT UP URSELF ASSWIP"
"You put it in, you supply the reference. Statements with solid refs do
stay in."
*silence*
NPOV implies writing for the POV you don't agree with - I edit a lot on
Scientology and neo-Nazi articles and try to keep my strong opinions on
both topics in check and stick to the facts with references, ma'am - but
there's a limit to how much of someone else's homework I can be bothered
doing.
- d.