Neutrality dispute: Difference between revisions
proposing n: for best neutral version, and phasing out w:; there is no reason to believe the Content Wiki/Research Wiki would use mediawiki, so that's not an argument to retain it
m (removing silly sentence that w: would point to somewhere else then the English Wikipedia since mediawiki is developed primarily for Wikipedia) |
(proposing n: for best neutral version, and phasing out w:; there is no reason to believe the Content Wiki/Research Wiki would use mediawiki, so that's not an argument to retain it) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
=== Content vs. opinion - where is neutrality possible? desirable? === | === Content vs. opinion - where is neutrality possible? desirable? === | ||
So it is safest to say that Wikipedia has had good short-run (three years) of success with its NPOV policy, and deals reasonably well with terminology and even identity disputes of the most obvious kind, resulting in decent factoring of articles and mostly-respected identity systems and claims of identity, but many incidents ultimately of a political nature that would sink Consumerium on the scale we expect them in our [[Content Wiki]]. ''And which are very likely to sink Wikipedia itself before it is five years old - it is already generating a goodly number of forks leading to a [[bad copy problem]] - one will replace it as the "leading arbiter of the [[GFDL text corpus]]".'' | So it is safest to say that Wikipedia has had good short-run (three years) of success with its NPOV policy, and deals reasonably well with terminology and even identity disputes of the most obvious kind, resulting in decent factoring of articles and mostly-respected identity systems and claims of identity, but many incidents ultimately of a political nature that would sink Consumerium on the scale we expect them in our [[Content Wiki]]. | ||
''And which are very likely to sink Wikipedia itself before it is five years old - it is already generating a goodly number of forks leading to a [[bad copy problem]] - one will replace it as the "leading arbiter of the [[GFDL text corpus]]". At that point [[w:]] may point somewhere else, or be replaced by another prefix like [[n:]] to mean most reliable [[neutral point of view]].'' | |||
So what does one do when neutrality is disputed in the content wiki? Removing isolating disputed claims to [[Opinion Wiki]] circles is not enough. | So what does one do when neutrality is disputed in the content wiki? Removing isolating disputed claims to [[Opinion Wiki]] circles is not enough. | ||