Jussi-ville writes: >> The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding >> information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view. > > I think you are being way too generous. ... Let me repeat in more concise > form. > The policy was written to enable serious work on hard topics, it as it > stands, hinders work, making it hard to edit simple facts.
I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years until the article was actually published before trying to modify the Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular sources we rely on never undergo. I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. --Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
