There is a debate on Jimbo's talk page about this topic. I see some intelligent comments being made by an editor with a red link named "Youreallycan." Judging from his knowledgeable observations he is not a new editor. It would be interesting to know who he used to be. Example:

You're in luck then!

That link will be useless in a few days. Try this one.

The problem is that there's no way for an uninvolved reader to know that an article is a "battlefield article". Articles that one might not expect to be a battlefield (for example, Hummus (T-H-L-K-D)) have nonetheless become such.

The problem is that Wikipedia "activists" may have strongly held opinions on nearly any topic, no matter how mundane or seemingly irrelevant, and will go to the wall to defend those opinions without rhyme or reason. The simple fact is that no information on Wikipedia should be given any credibility on its own. Simply put, Wikipedia's editorial process does absolutely nothing to systematically ensure that articles are factual and free of bias.

In a nutshell, one of the major dysfunctions of wikipedia, imho.

Well, that's interesting. Why are so many members here against him?


OK, I don't disagree. But the categories that he describes as "Battlefield" are virtually guaranteed to be biased, so it makes sense to provide a disclaimer.

It would be nice if "battlefield" articles were marked as that, but of course if you had such a marker, any attempt to mark an article with it would inevitably lead to a battle as to whether it applied.

Fundamentally this is due to Wikipedia's governance, which gives everyone the nominal authority to reconsider and reverse anyone else's decision. There is no body who has the authority to determine whether or not an article is a "battlefield" article, or that a category is a "battlefield" category. Over the seven years I've been observing Wikipedia I've seen this sort of recursive dispute cascade develop countless times.

Not that my opinion matters at Wikipedia, but I think that the proposal to automatically mark any article in the categories described is just what is needed. Caveat emptor.

Indeed. Just have a big old hazmat symbol on any topic falling into the above categories. I used to see newbies good-naturedly walk into minefield articles only to get swarmed. Hell, I was one of those newbies. Not surprisingly, not many stick around.

Wikipedia:List of controversial issues (T-H-L-K-D):



The lines have been drawn.

Then you just get an edit war over placing the article in the relevant category. Remember, anyone can edit category tags. Yes, I've seen this happen. Eventually someone steps over 3RR, gets blocked, and then the fireworks start in earnest. It's insanely stupid.

The idea of "NPOV contributors" or "NPOV editors" is one of the most Orwellian of the new fads to come down the Wikipedia pipe. What qualifies one to be an NPOV contributor exactly? After all, "NPOV" is a made-up Wikipedia-ism with little connection to external reality. As such, obsessed basement-dwellers have come to believe that these four letters carry some sort of magical imprimatur in Wikipedia quite independent from the tortured prose on the "policy page" that bears "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" as a title. Only, don't bother reading that garbage either. You'll only find text that haphazardly offers third-rate platitudinal drivel about not taking sides.

It doesn't take too much digging to find out that the "NPOV policy" was made up by a bunch of amateurs who were worried that other anonymous internet users couldn't write coherently, and so it was important to be able to continually remind anyone and everyone quickly and efficiently how to do so. Today, what began as a style-guide for the blind leading the blind has evolved into a new ideal: the "NPOV contributor". The whole pageant is fantastically ouroboric. Small wonder that contributors who claim the mantle are some of the most ignorant people found there. Ignorance is certainly a hallmark of this particular user.

A lobotomy.