[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Sun Mar 20 12:56:57 UTC 2005

------------- Original message -------------- 
> 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. 

Nah, the kooky view is too easy.  A better case would be a passage in a scientific article written by one of our inhouse experts that correctly states the basic concept of a scientific field, but in a way that hasn't been "published" because it is trivial grad student exercise the derive it, and all published work is at the bleeding edge of the field.  Imagine his/her frustration at being asked for a citation for something that is obvious, and not being able to provide one, even though he can explain it so well that even the arbitrators understand it.

Sorry, no original research,  no insightful explanations and yes, a big hole in making the subject more accessible.

                   -- Silverback