QUOTE(everyking @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 10:33pm)
QUOTE(Krimpet @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 11:30pm)
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 2nd September 2009, 4:09pm)
Word. I first heard of him by reading an old arbcom case. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
Lyndon LaRouche seems to be one of those topics grossly over-covered as a result of edit warring; loads of kooks use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their cult or fringe movement of choice, then their critics come and double the size of the article with their criticism, often with people citing their own works and sneaking in a little self-promotion in the process. The Scientology articles are the same way, as are other fringe topics, I'm sure.
I disagree--the upside to edit warring is traditionally that you get vastly expanded and improved content. The two sides beat each other black and blue, but as the beatings in part take the form of research, sourcing, and expansion, the ultimate result can be very positive. If not for all the LaRouche edit warring, articles related to LaRouche would no doubt be rather few and rather pitiful.
See that's the problem: for some people who prefer to keep importance in perspective, the articles on LaRouche
should be short and pitiful compared to articles on people who make a real difference. I'm not espousing that perspective, but I can see why someone might think so. It's more congruous to expect proportional coverage in a centralized model, but Wikipedia's decentralized model leads to growth in odd topics. This is plain to see, writ small, in the collection of Good Articles and Featured Content.