There does need to be some sort of final say on matters of NPOV and
opinion. Concensus cannot always be achieved, and many contentious
pages are controlled by a POV lobby which alert one another when a
vote w partican potential comes along.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Don't judge the content, but the user conduct. If
people keep editing
without discussing it and trying to reach common ground, you can take
the case because of conduct. It's the controversial cases in which
large numbers of people disagree that are the problem. Unfortunately,
those take time, and can't be properly handled by a small group of
people (they're probably divided on it themselves).
--Mgm
On 6/4/05, David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
Mark Pellegrini (mapellegrini(a)comcast.net)
[050605 05:23]:
The Arbitration Committee is seeking public
commentary and suggestions
pertaining to an ongoing problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC
Everyone should read and consider this. We've had *lengthy* discussions on
this matter on wikien-l.
Basically: most of the really poisonous arseholes have in fact been kicked
off en: Wikipedia, and when new ones show up they are ejected in reasonable
order. (In a lot of cases, it's not even reaching the AC as they're dealt
with as obvious vandals and trolls by WP:AN/I.) So now the AC is getting a
lot of grey-area cases that are really a proxy for a content dispute. What
to do about this?
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l