My suggestion is to accept content issues, but appoint committees to
research questions which are beyond ordinary competence. If someone
is "on the level" they can cite book and page in established
references in the field. Inability to do so generally means they are
an original researcher or out of touch with the literature. There are
some grey areas, for example, most references are in an unusual
language, Armenian, for example, but almost all legitimate references
can be accessed though an ordinary library with Inter Library Loan,
or at a good college library. But you see, by looking at it this way
it comes back to a behavior problem, not citing sources or improperly
removing information that has been sourced because they don't like
the point of view.
Fred
On Jun 5, 2005, at 6:56 AM, David Gerard wrote:
steven l. rubenstein (rubenste(a)ohiou.edu) [050605
22:48]:
What we need first is a ruling by or concerning
the ArbCom that it
will
consider and pass judgements on content-based disputes, or it will
not. We
just need to make this clear, one way or the other.
I can tell you now we have no intention of taking on this one as
well! Not
just the amount of work, but simply that that's not what the AC was
put
into place for.
And if ArbCom will not or cannot handle
content-based disputes, we
need to
develop another committee or mechanism.
Well, yeah.
There are all sorts of possible problems. Specialist Point Of View
is not
necessarily Neutral Point Of View. That sort of thing.
I am repeating something I have said several
times in the past.
This issue
is not new.
That's why it's being discussed here as well :-)
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l