[WikiEN-l] Proposal for a new policy

Fri Feb 11 00:14:16 UTC 2005

After reading the various opinions expressed here about how to deal with 
the small number of controversial articles which -- sadly -- are in 
perpetual turmoil, I've distilled what appear to be some points of 
agreement, & offer the following proposal based on them. If enough peole 
agree it is a step in the right direction, & the ideas outweigh
tendency for being long-winded, I'll add it to the appropriate spot on 
Wikiepdia for proper consideration. (Not sure where that is, but as I 
said, if this is an intelligent idea, I'm sure someone who does know will 
help.)

Geoff

==A new category [[Category:lack of wikilove]] ==
I've selected this title because the problem articles aren't as much over 
the facts, but because the editors involved lack consideration for one 
another. I've set forth several proposed rules of varying detail, with my 
explanations set forth in the paragraphs after the rule.

1. The procedure to put an article in [[Category: lack of wikilove]] must 
be simple and allow itself to quick application.

I have no clear idea of how to do this. The procedure for VfD -- setting a 
period of 7 days to vote -- would take too long to successfully impliment. 
So would delegating this task solely to the ArbCom (although I feel they 
should have the power to place any article in this category if they 
believe the situation requires it). Allowing anyone (or even only admins) 
to slap this tag on articles lends itself to abuses & problems about as 
bad as it hopes to solve. The only point I would insist on for tagging 
articles is the next one:

2. An article may only be placed in this category if it has already been 
marked as being fought over -- e.g. marked with {{NPOV}} or {{disputed}}.

Once an article is so marked, in addition to all existing rules of conduct 
the following is observed:

3. To make any non-trivial edit (correct typos, spelling, minor points of 
grammar), an editor must first make an appropriate comment explaining the 
edit on the talk page.

This seems to be in harmony with some of the opinions expressed here: not 
only does it force the editors of this article to talk to each other, it 
forces all sides to slow down.

By the word "appropriate", I mean to include at least the following:
* It is not obvious gibberish -- i.e. adding things like "alksfgh" or "I 
like apple pie"
* It contributes to the flow of the discussion -- e.g. keeps from making 
entries like: "This is the correct view" or "I have to type something so 
here it is".

4. All assertions of fact must be properly documented. If another editor 
cannot confirm the citation is correct, that editor may correct or remove 
the statement and the first cannot revert the deletion. However, if a 
third editor can confirm that the original statement was correct, then the 
first statement may be restored unchanged, and the second editor may not 
revert it.

This one gets a bit tricky. In effect, the intent here is to push hostile 
parties with opposing views to cite their sources, both correctly & 
usefully -- and to avoid bickering of the "This is true" - "No it isn't" 
sort. If an editor fabricates a citation, this allows another editor to 
remove it; if the next editor has lied about the source being invented, 
then it can be restored.

However, this admittedly moves the battle of wills into a new area: 
instead of bickering over whether or not something is true, editors can 
now bicker over whether or not an authority actually wrote something or 
not. Hopefully, were this to happen, disinterested parties can 
independently check citations, determine with a minimum of confusion which 
side has resorted to lying, & act appropriately. And the requirement that 
all edits be accompanied with comments on the Talk page will slow things 
down. If not, then we turn to this:

5. Administrators are given full discretion in enforcing these points for 
articles so marked -- only as long as they have not made any edits to the 
article.

In short, if two vicious factions have made a battlefield out of an 
article, they can expect to get clobbered. One possible amendment to this 
point would be to make violation of these rules subject to immediate bans 
for more than 24 hours.

6. The article can only be removed from the category after an extended 
vote with a minimum number and share of yes votes.

No fair gaming the system to get an article out of this category when it 
works to your advantage. The editors who made a mess of an article have to 
convince a lot of people that they now can exchange Wikilove while working 
on this subject.