[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Sun Mar 20 12:03:20 UTC 2005

Most content disputes are associated with *behaviour* that oversteps
one or more Wikipedia policies, and while there is no arbitration or
mediation process for content, there are numerous dispute resolution
systems that do focus on behaviour.

A problematic editor who is "wrong", is also probably violating the
policies on "no original research", "cite your sources", and "neutral
point of view".    It also usually works out that a person who
persists in adding invalid material to articles in violation of these
policies will also violate the policies against "personal attacks" and
on "civility".  This isn't always the case, and unfortunately it often
happens that the dispute becomes so heated that nobody maintains the
moral high ground on these points.

Nevertheless, I think most content disputes can be treated as
behavioural issues and resolved on the basis of existing policies
without anybody needing to decide the actual content issue.   The
[[Capitalism]] article is not a test case for content disputes because
the problem editor has violated a number of Wikipedia policies, such
as "cite your sources".

A real test case would be one where a person was politely and civilly
putting a kooky point of view into an article, while cheerfully
admitting that it was only one of the valid points of view that must
be presented under NPOV, and happily citing sources -- all kooky as
well.   As long as it was not original research, and there were some
sources for it, however laughable, such a dispute could not be
resolved without a decision on the merits.  At present, the only
mechanism for that is weight of numbers: the side with the most
editors wins.