[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Sat Mar 26 12:18:52 UTC 2005

I don't think the problem is well phrased as repeated deletions, although
that can happen. The more frequent problem is repeated insertions of
material which is poorly sourced, represents a minority position (acceptable
but not to the point it dominates the article) or amounts to advocacy or
propaganda for a point of view. While in certain areas editors can and do
gang up, generally when most of the other editors are deleting something,
citing Wikipedia policy, giving a variety of reasons why the material is
unacceptable, that is a clue that maybe something is wrong.

The notion of a clue is central. While it is frequent that Wikipedia editors
who are up to something themselves give out a variety of spurious reasons as
cover, it is important to consider the reasons people are giving for what
they are doing. For example, I have a distinct proclivity to make stuff up
as I go along, making an original definition for [[truth]] or [[reality]]
etc. At some point I began taking "no original research" seriously. Not at
first, but eventually I read the policy and took a good look at what I was
doing. I still sin, but I could be said to "have a clue" at this point.

There is a certain Tao involved here. If you are fighting hard, you are
probably fighting for something not worth fighting for in a Wikipedia
context, usually a point of view.

Fred

> From: Thomas Haws <hawstom at sprintmail.com>
> Reply-To: Thomas Haws <hawstom at sprintmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:35:23 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content
> 
> my attitude is maybe I can 1) learn something from that "original researcher"
> 2) help him feel good about contributing to Wikipedia, and 3) show him by
> example how Wikipedia works at its best and what NPOV means.  As much as it
> hurts at times, I simply cannot afford to take excessive ownership in
> articles.
> 
> And so I continue to believe that repeated deletions of the same thing (I
> personally wouldn't repeat myself over twice except on a talk page) are indeed
> the beginning of the problem.