David Gerard wrote:
I think I
missed a reference, there.
<whisper>Look at the history of [[Sollog]] some time ...</whisper>
Ahhh. It becomes clear, now. Thank you.
I find that with a new, hotheaded but potentially sincere editor,
commenting out a dubious addition (HTML comments - start "<!--" and end
"-->" ), starting the comment with a request for a reference, produces
better results than just deleting material. It gives them a better idea of
the standard to work to.
That's exactly the sort of approach I'd favor (if I were to ever find
myself in the position of deleting entire edits by others).
Besides, if
their heads explode you'll have reduced the population of
people introducing problematic edits into controversial articles.
I'd rather convert them into NPOV pushers ;-) The Arbitration Committee has
recently reaffirmed that even the worst editors are to be regarded as
theoretically redeemable!
In theory, there isn't any difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is. (paraphrased from somewhere, source unknown)
. . . but I agree with the sentiment.
"WE DONOT THINK THAT YOU ZOG ACTIVIST"
"So do you have a checkable reference for what your organization does
believe?"
"LOOK IT UP URSELF ASSWIP"
"You put it in, you supply the reference. Statements with solid refs do
stay in."
*silence*
NPOV implies writing for the POV you don't agree with - I edit a lot on
Scientology and neo-Nazi articles and try to keep my strong opinions on
both topics in check and stick to the facts with references, ma'am - but
there's a limit to how much of someone else's homework I can be bothered
doing.
Great! That's the way it should . . . err, "ma'am"?
--
Chad