[WikiEN-l] Re: Resolving content disputes (was: Mother Teresa article)

Tue Oct 28 16:48:01 UTC 2003

"Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com> schrieb:

> I think that the best resolution here is to lean towards
> "completionism" rather than "deletionism".  If an article is
> one-sided, then grow it.  And then after it grows too big, it will
> often be much easier to see how to break parts off into sub-articles.

I partly agree, but for a large part also disagree.

> Here's an example from the current dispute.
> 
> "Mother Theresa is just about to be elevated to Sainthood.  Here's 20
> paragraphs about why, her good works, why she is beloved by so many
> and so forth.  And here's one sentence of criticism consisting mainly
> of a link to a separate page."
> 
> OR
> 
> "Mother Theresa is just about to be elevated to Sainthood.  Here's 2
> sentences saying way, followed by 20 paragraphs of criticism of her
> and her order."
> 
> I would say that in *either* case, the right solution is *seldom* to
> 'balance' the article by *removing* valid material that is otherwise
> NPOV.  More likely, what is needed is *more material*.  And then
> hopefully, in that process, we can find that both parties are
> satisfied to have some of the material moved out as necessary to
> auxiliary articles.

I disagree. We are to state that there is criticism, and what the criticism
consists of. But there is no need to get into detail to prove those
criticisms or spend two paragraphs per criticism to give examples. I don't
see what the value is of spending eight paragraphs giving examples and
evidence of insufficient care in Mother Theresa's homes. One paragraph
specifying the criticism, and one with some examples would in my opinion
be enough to give the relevant information in NPOV. Wikipedia is to state
what criticism exists, and why. It's not our task to provide the
necessary information for everybody to make decisions on the issue.

> I think that deletionism forgets that Wiki Is Not Paper, and that
> completionism is likely to lead us to a better final article.

I disagree. An article that basically is arguing both sides of an
issues extensively is NOT how I see the ideal, NPOV article. Rather,
I would like the article to mention that there is argument, give the
arguments of both sides, and then be ready with it. Wikipedia does
not exist to build up an argument - also not if it is dressed up in
NPOV language.

Andre Engels