--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
The Njyoder case involves [[gender]], an article which
makes sense in
a subcultural context but not much sense to Njyoder. A content
inquiry as to whether within the subcultural context there there is
significant content which might go into the article is helpful.
Very well put. Thus my idea of having advisory panels in various fields that
the ArbCom can consult to help it find out just who is and is not following our
content-related policies. 12 people simply do not have enough combined
knowledge about everything needed to make this effective except in the most
obvious of cases.
I think the test is whether without some reference to
content
questions, the disputes remain unresolved and unresolvable under a
theory that one opinion is as good as another. LIke I said earlier, a
theory of a flat earth is fine in [[flat earth]] but out of place in
[[astrophysics]].
Another excellent point. If we only looked at violations of purely behavioral
policies, then all a POV/OR-pusher would need to do is be persistent and
provoke editors working against them into violations of our behavioral policies
and guidelines.
It can be *very* frustrating to know what is NPOV and what is and is not
original research in an area and have somebody very persistently try to push a
POV or OR. Thus I can understand why some outbursts from good editors can
happen. Such outbursts can not be condoned, but the reason why they happened
should be considered and that information should mitigate any remedy for the
outburst and the person provoking the outburst should be sanctioned.
If we (the ArbCom) ding the good editor for violating a behavioral policy and
leave the bad editor alone just because we either did not understand the
content policy violation or because we are gun-shy from enforcing those
policies except in the most blatant of cases, then we have failed in our
primary goal; to provide an environment where good editors can create the best
encyclopedia possible.
That's why I want the ArbCom to have the ability to consult subject-area
advisory panels when needed.
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com