CZ Talk:Dispute Resolution: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Stephen Ewen (Neutrality Editors?) |
imported>Stephen Ewen mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
::It looks good, although somewhat indigestible. As a guiding document it will be fine, but possibly we will need to split it up into sub-areas, just for people to get their heads around it.--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 14:54, 29 August 2007 (CDT) | ::It looks good, although somewhat indigestible. As a guiding document it will be fine, but possibly we will need to split it up into sub-areas, just for people to get their heads around it.--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 14:54, 29 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
:I think the idea of a Lead Workgroup Editor is important for streamlining decisions. I have to say, however, that when such people rule in their own areas of expertise, it can be hard for them to separate out their own biases. More often, it is likely to be an intelligent ''disinterested'' party who is most inclined to resolve neutrality issues. For example, if I were in a conflict about [[Bill Clinton]], I'd far-and-above take a Gareth Leng--a Scottish physiologist with a great handle on neutrality--over a person more closely situated to the topic by nationality and discipline. Perhaps the idea of Neutrality Editors is worth considering. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 15:16, 29 August 2007 (CDT) | :I think the idea of a Lead Workgroup Editor is important for streamlining decisions. I have to say, however, that when such people rule ''finally'' in their own areas of expertise, it can be hard for them to separate out their own biases. More often, it is likely to be an intelligent ''disinterested'' party who is most inclined to resolve neutrality issues. For example, if I were in a conflict about [[Bill Clinton]], I'd far-and-above take a Gareth Leng--a Scottish physiologist with a great handle on neutrality--over a person more closely situated to the topic by nationality and discipline. Perhaps the idea of Neutrality Editors is worth considering. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 15:16, 29 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 15:20, 29 August 2007
How's this looking so far?? --Larry Sanger 14:51, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
- It looks good, although somewhat indigestible. As a guiding document it will be fine, but possibly we will need to split it up into sub-areas, just for people to get their heads around it.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:54, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
- I think the idea of a Lead Workgroup Editor is important for streamlining decisions. I have to say, however, that when such people rule finally in their own areas of expertise, it can be hard for them to separate out their own biases. More often, it is likely to be an intelligent disinterested party who is most inclined to resolve neutrality issues. For example, if I were in a conflict about Bill Clinton, I'd far-and-above take a Gareth Leng--a Scottish physiologist with a great handle on neutrality--over a person more closely situated to the topic by nationality and discipline. Perhaps the idea of Neutrality Editors is worth considering. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:16, 29 August 2007 (CDT)