Changes

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question.  If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct?  Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right?  Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems.  (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced).  First, the article may be locked, as this article is.  In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page.  Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact.  It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted.  Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page.  Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban.  So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk.  And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives.    [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question.  If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct?  Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right?  Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems.  (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced).  First, the article may be locked, as this article is.  In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page.  Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact.  It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted.  Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page.  Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban.  So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk.  And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives.    [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

== Talking with enemies ==