On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:27:15 +0600, Arno M <redgum46(a)lycos.com> wrote:
What you wrote sounds fine, but it has not worked out
all the time.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Lee" <johnleemk(a)gawab.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 3RR: Pluses vs Minuses
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:00:29 +0800
Arno M wrote:
On the minus, well, in addition to what I've
already written
if there are several persons in the wrong about an article and
one person in the right, then the one in the minority is severely
disadvantaged
by the 3RR ruling.
Wikipedia operates on the theory that the good people always
outnumber the bad. If the data is factually incorrect, call in
outside help. The belief that just because you're right/extremely
knowledgeable you can revert wantonly has created a lot of problems
in the past.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What I worry about is that so many Wikipedia conventions assume that
the majority of Wikipedia editors will be right (although in reality
we are talking about what the majority of *more active* editors
think).
There is no guarantee to suggest that a random group of Wikipedia
editors are going to write about an article in an unbiased way - more
importantly, the majority Wikipedia editor consensus could be behind
them, even while the majority worldview is not.
All the 3RR does in *some* circumstances is re-enforce Wikipedia's
majority bias. Even if it is a useful enforcement tool in many other
cases.
Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...