> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Apart from the question of whether this particular article -- on the >> Haymarket bombing -- has been hurt by editors' ill-considered >> application of UNDUE, there's the larger question of what it means for >> our credibility when a very respected journal, The Chronicle of Higher >> Education, features an op-ed that outlines, in very convincing detail, >> what happens when a subject-matter expert attempts to play the rules >> and is still slapped down. If I thought this author's experience is >> rare, I wouldn't be troubled by it. But as someone who frequently >> fielded complaints from folks who were not tendentious kooks, my >> impression is that it is not rare, and that the language of UNDUE -- >> as it exists today -- ends up being leveraged in a way that hurts >> Wikipedia both informationally and reputationally. >> > > Do you have specific ideas either as to what is wrong with the current > language, or what it should be changed to say? > > Mike
Would any of you consider joining the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#The_.27Undue_Weight.27_of_Truth_on_Wikipedia I've probably gotten it off to a bad start, and perhaps that is not the place to discuss the policy, but I suspect it is. Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
