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.