[WikiEN-l] 3RR applied to both parties?

Sat Mar 5 01:27:12 UTC 2005

That's my point, too, and one I made earlier, albeit none too clearly.

If someone puts in a biased, incorrect or dubious statement, he/she can then actually abuse the 3RR rule to make sure it stays in if anyone tries to correct it. This abuse includes threatening to invoke the 3RR rule.

I went through this kind of thing last year.

Arno

----- Original Message -----
From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 3RR applied to both parties?
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:26:42 -0500

> 
> > From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
> >
> > If Geni's interpretation of 3RR is correct, then we have an unwinnable
> > game of tic tac toe going on against editors trying to keep nonsense
> > out of articles.
> >
> 
> I've argued against this interpretation for precisely this reason; 
> it is biased toward the inserter of the information, who can always 
> win.  Thus I can go to a little watched article (say [[Rashba  
> (rabbi)]]) and insert the statment
> 
> "He had 4 sons and 1 daughter, and was noted for his handsome 
> appearance.  He choked on a soup bone and died while visiting Rome 
> in 1310."
> 
> Now this is complete nonsense, I've just made it up.  But if the 
> one person who happens to know this is nonsense reverts it, and an 
> edit war develops, in the end the second person will get banned for 
> 24 hours for removing the information, because it is not obvious 
> vandalism.
> 
> Jay.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- 
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com