The only reason the current Arbitration Committee does not consider content
is because we believe there is a community consensus that we should not. We
do, in effect, consider content when the problem is aggressive POV editing,
but as to deciding the essential nature of gravity we might be out of our
depth. It is ok for Lieutenant Commander Data to throw about talk about
gravitons but there are necessarily limits. However an editor who claims
Scotland in Asia, that we might be able to deal with. As to whether Mongolia
is in Central Asia or East Asia, well the problem is really with the editors
who thinks it's important enough to revert over and over and over and over.
Fred
From: <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: slimvirgin(a)gmail.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:27:02 -0700
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 02:42:57 +0000, Abe Sokolov <abesokolov(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
Wikipedia has a court reprimanding users for
breaking the 3RR and making
personal attacks. But it lacks an authority reprimanding users for
chronically undermining Wikipedia's progress with original research, POV
nonsense, and ungrammatical prose. My suggestion on Wikipedia:Forum for
Encyclopedic Standards was an alternative arbitration committee with public
credibility, composed of qualified encyclopedists who have the calhones not
to edit anonymously.
Exactly right, and I can't think of a single reason that anyone would
want to oppose this. It wouldn't prioritize content over process, but
would simply put the two on a par, which is the right approach because
the two are inextricably linked. The content-related policies are
already in place; all we need is a committee able and willing to
enforce them.
Sarah
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l