[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Fri Mar 25 21:02:07 UTC 2005

Tom Haws wrote,

>steven l. rubenstein wrote:
>
>
> > Some people have suggested that if someone keeps putting unsourced
> > material on the page, the solution is to delete it.  Well, this is the
> > first solution to any problem at Wikipedia.
>
>
>Heh-heh.  It is easy to see how this problem got started.  Deleting
>unsourced material is an excellent excuse for POV police, warriors, and
>their ilk.  But it doesn't go over too well in polite society.
>
>
>Tom Haws

Are you being disingenuous, or have you just not been following this 
thread?  I thought it was abundantly clear that the person in question had 
been asked for a source several times.  The question is, what to do 
then?  Ray Saintonge replied, delete.  And that is where my e-mail picks 
up. To then suggest I am a POV cop in this matter is disingenuous and 
dangerous.

What POV do you think I am pushing, Tom?

It should be clear that this is NOT a matter of pushing a POV.  I have no 
objection to including a marxist definition in the article.  But it must be 
accurate.  Otherwise, what kind of encyclopedia is this?

Okay Tom, what do you think we should do, if someone refuses over the 
course of several weeks to provide a source for a claim that some editors 
say is inaccurate or simply false?

I am getting tired of this discussion that seems to go nowhere, but I think 
it is important.  If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior anyone who 
insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite sources, must be 
enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a good encyclopedia?  Or 
do you have a different goal, Tom?

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701