...except it's in User space.

Of course, the Cabal couldn't touch this one...but it's worth following....

Could some nice Mod please move this thread to the politics forum?

It's always pretty predictable where these sorts of threads end up.

Thanks,

Jon

Why? This is about the single largest source of conflicts in all of Wikipedia, which is nationalistic and ethnic bias. There have been more Arb-com cases about this than about anything else....

If anywhere, it should be moved to the General discussion forum....but I put it here after having reflected on where it should go.

I feel strongly that it is indeed part of the big picture, myself.

Agreed, it is specifically about WP so it should stay in general/meta.

It is ridiculous for Wikipedia to even suggest they are somehow capable of producing a NPOV article on some of the controversial subjects. If it is found to be impossible for the editors to agree on a NPOV article, a simple solution would be the creation of two versions of the article with each of the viewpoints. It would be up to the reader to decide who is correct, rather than Wikipedia making the decision for the reader.

Isn't that the *gasp* Wikinfo model?

...because it would be actually useful, but require minimal work on battleground articles? But seriously what could you do with attitudes like this:

I don't see any easy solutions here...but I'm not seeing in serious discussion of this problem either on the mailing lists nor on meta space.

While this discussion is probably not going to solve the problem, at least somebody's trying to do something.

Everything's a part of The Big Picture — that's why they call it The Big Picture.

The question is — How close are you standing to the picture?

Sticking yer nose up a single editor's user space and giving the play-by-play on what you see there is what I would call standing way too close to the picture.

Jon

Well, read this section then.

This comes pretty close to explaining WHY these nationalist/ethnic conflicts come to happen. Even if it doesn't suggest a solution, it's pretty close to explaining the process.

The fact is : this should be happening in metaspace, not userspace.

The fact that it is, indeed, on somebody's user page speaks volumes.

Sorry to hijack your forum like this, Jonny, but it's for a good cause....

It's not my forum, but it's not supposed to be the same as all the other forums. or else why bother?

ThurstonHowell3rd already said pretty much what I would have said myself, which is pretty much all there is to say about the ability of Wikipedia to handle any subject where genuine differences of opinion arise — ethnic, life-style, political, religious, and scientific topics being just a few of the more obvious areas.

Wikipedia is a Chat Room. The proof of that rests in the fact that Wikipedia claims the legal protections of chat room discussions, email correspondence, and telephone conversations. In every pinch where responsibility mignt be demanded of it, Wikipedia resorts to the last resort of private communications that are "accidentally" made public — and so a Chat Room is all Wikipedia will ever be at bottom.

It is simply ridiculous to discuss the possibility that Wikipedia, a Chat Room dominated by Screaming Infant POV-Pushers, will ever be able to handle controversial topics with the sort of fact-checking, reality-testing spirit of inquiry that it would take to provide moderately objective accounts of their subject matters.

There is really nothing more to say.

Jon

Has WP:Office ever been invoked in a content dispute of the variety being discussed here?

I don't know myself, but I would imagine that if somebody's embassy complained then it would logically be an "office" action....



Here's an interesting comment from Special Agent Elonka...

She's gathering data about this....wonder what that means???