User talk:BostonMA/Proposals in previous conflicts
 |
This is an archive page. Please do not edit this page without permission. If you would like to comment, please do so at User talk:BostonMA. Thank-you.
|
Proposals edit
This section contains proposals for agreements that I have made for working out editting issues. I have copied them here from the talk pages of Communism because the latter pages tend to get both cluttered and archived. Anyone is invited to add their sig to a proposal. However, please do not add comments to this page. If you would like to comment on a proposal, please do so in my talk page.
Proposal for moderating the edit wars [1]
The Wikipedia:Resolving disputes page is official policy of wikipedia. The very first paragraph on disupte resolution reads in part:
- "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."
That point dovetails with the Wikipedia philosophy of NPOV
- "Wikipedia policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" "
It is worth emphasizing that a neutral point of view is one that incorporates (significant) minority views, not one that ignores such minority views.
It is quite obvious that in the recent period, editors have not been following these guidelines. Rather than improving edits, editors have been reverting. Rather than attempting to incorporate minority views, editors have been attempting to exclude those views.
I would like all active editors to take the current cooling off period to reconsider their commitment to these guidelines. I would further propose that as a precondition for the unlocking of the page, we make an explicit agreement amongst ourselves to abide by these guidelines. (BostonMA 03:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
By attaching my username below, I agree to abide by the guidelines described above.
- (BostonMA 03:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
Proposal re: Original Research [2]
In my opinion, there are many sorts of statements that are immediately suspect as original research, and more or less require verifiable sources if they are to stand. Such suspect statements include statements of the implications of certain theories. For example, if one states, "Person X's theory implies Y", that is likely to be original research, that it is likely that the editor actually made the implication. It would not be original research if a verifiable source drew the implication, although questions of neutrality may come into play at that point. Another suspect class of statements are those that purport to provide the motives or reasons behind the actions of various parties. Again, if there are verifiable sources, then it would not be original research, but these sorts of statements are immediately suspect. A third class of statements that I would find suspect includes those that have "The world" or "History" as the subject of an action clause.
Suspect statements are not necessarily original research. However, the following phrases in Communism are examples of things that raise red flags for me.
- "Marx's theory had presumed that..." (Who drew the implication from Marx's theory? A verifiable source, or the author of the edit?)
- "according to Marxian theory" (According to Marxian theory, or according to the interpetation of Marxian theory of the editor?)
- "For this reason, the socialist Mensheviks..." (Who drew this inference? The editor? or a verifiable source?)
I would favor the establishment of an informal, but at least explicitly stated agreement regarding such suspect statements.
The agreement I would propose is this:
- 1. An editor puts on the discussion page a section entitled
- "Original Research -- some description".
- 2. Other editors supply, within 48 hours, verifiable sources if they exist, or a request for extension.
- 3. If no offer of verifiable sources or request for extension is made within 48 hours, an editor may edit or remove the suspect statement.
- 4. Editors agree not to revert a suspect statement removed or editted in accordance with this procedure, unless verifiable sources are provided.