Don Thanks Inline...
Donald Whytock wrote: > Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to > object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as > finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an > argument. > > Regarding conflicts of interest: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide > > This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject > matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally > committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises > "personal involvement" is a complicated question. > > Regarding opinionated content: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion > > AKA > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX > > This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over > things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have > said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader > doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and > value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such > person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value > judgments. > > Just above that is > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought > > AKA > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM > > which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research. > > Regarding it getting ugly: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground > > AKA > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND > > Regarding dispute resolution: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution > > Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things > that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for > situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content > of the article. > > Regarding neutral point-of-view: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute > > This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure > for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part > of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The > similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should > be the very last resort. > > Don Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy statements seem to have been. But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it be something other. louis
