geni wrote:
On 11/1/05, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Your ratio of controversial articles seems about
right. The problem is
in the tenacity with which controversial deletions are protected. No
damage would be done by allowing the controversial ones more time, or
allowing them to be easily undeleted for further discussion for as long
as it takes.
Prolonginf conflict is not a good idea.
It would depend on the circumstances of the conflict, wouldn't it? In
cases where there's genuine debate going on, it doesn't make sense to
arbitrarily cut it off at some deadline rather than letting it
continue until a clear decision is reached. If it stalemates then
perhaps a deadline can come into play but it shouldn't be required as
a universal solution.
"Conflict" is not inherently bad, it's part of how disagreements can
be resolved.
Conflict becomes bad when the conflict itself becomes more important
than the subject of the conflict. Some domestic arguments manage to
carry on even after the spouses have forgotten what the argument was about.
Ec