From: "Ira Stoll" <irastoll(a)hotmail.com> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:45:58 -0600 To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy suggestions == Policy suggestions == Most of the conflict I have had here (IMO) was due to disputes over quality of information (and citations), or the inclusion or exclusion of POV (Interpretations of said information, and citations). I'd like to propose a few things, which might make my job here (assuming I get to keep it) and yours a bit easier. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm well aware that I am a dubious source of information, and I don't think I'm giving orders (I'm pretty low on the totem pole, clearly) but I would like you to hear my policy suggestions. *only replace text that you know to be wrong (inaccurate), and replace it with something that has a citation to back it up. If they have a reasonable difference, based on citation, allow both POV to be presented *Multiple POV '''should''' be expressed, and differing citations given. wiki is not paper. There is room for everyone to be heard, history shows us many examples of minority opinion later being found correct. There is room for all POV's so long as citations are given. *There is always room for respectable citations that differ. *The quality expected of the citations should be based on the number of editors, and thus number of citations involved. The more citations provided, the higher the standard (thus in an article with only one editor, a lower standard of citation would be expected than in an article where numerous editors are present and there are plentiful citations). *NPOV can be promoted best by providing citations of differing POV's and presenting said POV's in as impartial a manner as possible, thereby providing the highest quality, objective information possible. *I think some sort of forum for debate over POV should be made available, as there seems to be no end of desire for it among some. **editors who have proof of particular expertise should be considered a citation in and of themselves (on the subjects that they have such proof of expertise in). p.s. I previously posted this on [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitrators]], and I also posted it on village pump and wikipedia:policy and guidelines. JackLynch _________________________________________________________________ Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up — fast & reliable Internet access with prime features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

From: "Ira Stoll" <irastoll(a)hotmail.com> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:45:58 -0600 To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy suggestions **editors who have proof of particular expertise should be considered a citation in and of themselves (on the subjects that they have such proof of expertise in).