Wikipedia talk:Expert retention/Burden of proof

message: This is proposed as a stronger alternative to Wikipedia:Tendentious editors.
See Wikipedia:Expert Retention for background. Mangoe 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

message: Watching the action in Wikipedia:Tendentious editors, it has become apparent to me that we are slipping into the sort of behavior-based standard that we had earlier agreed was a contributor to the problem (see "OK, let me try a different angle: mission priorities"). While we all agree that, um, personality issues are important here, it seemed to me that we needed a way to state this in terms other than those of personal conflict. It seemed to me that we were focusing on rules which would give more ammunition to the ArbCom process, when having to use it at all seemed to be one of the major issues that the experts had.
This seems to be me to be both a good fundamental principle and a good way to cut article damage short. Since the issue revolves around people coming in and editing against the expert consensus, it seemed to me that instead of trying to figure out what that consensus was and imposing it later in the process, it would be more effective to assume up front that Wikipedia content already represented that consensus and put the burden upon those who wanted to change it. By focusing on the challenges to those changes, I would allow uncontroversial changes to simply fall through, whether or not they were well-referenced. This, plus the stricture against devil's advocate actions, would protect the run-of-the-mill article from this proposed rule, regardless of how well-written it was, because most people would not be inclined to issue challenges. In the problem cases, administrators would be empowered to shut down edit wars quickly, in favor of stability, essentially putting teeth behind the principle that controversial changes should be worked out in talk before being imposed. It would also bias against edit creep.
Obviously this needs a lot of refinement. Mangoe 02:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I wrote this

message: Either would improve Wikipedia.
Some of the limitations on Wikipedia:Tendentious editors are political concessions, I'll freely admit--I'm expecting a significant blowback when it goes to a vote.  Many cranks are rather protective of their right to be cranky.  
It might be useful to summarize what you think the similarities and differences are between the two policies; I'll work on my take on the diffs once I study this proposal further.
--EngineerScotty 22:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle I like this a lot.  What concerns me is the potential for abuse.  I take it for granted that a good number of edit warring Wikilawyers will attempt to turn any proposal along these lines against a non-crank editor.  How would you guard against that? Durova 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So far, I'll support either this or TE 

message: In addition to the exclusion on topics considered controversial; I'd also add topics which are generally not the focus of formal study.  This includes much fluff (i.e. Pokemon) and such, which has little if any scholarly material written about it.  (And even if someone does write a formal paper about a topic such as Pokemon--I'm sure it's been done--I'm still not sure that Pokemon and similar subjects should fall under the scope of the policy.)  --EngineerScotty 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One change I would suggest

message: Wikipedia:Verifiability already says the burden is on the person adding information to source it. Fagstein 02:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So at what point would this proposal kick in?  How much good faith attempt at resolution does it require before blocking? Durova 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't Verifiability already cover this? 

message: WP:DIS is currently an essay, little cited, and seems to consist of someone kvetching about the great userbox war--a spectacle which I'll agree was a great waste of the time of all involved.  :)
Perhaps it could become an "umbrella" policy, which covers the following more specific ones:
* WP:3RR
* WP:POINT
* This, and/or Wikipedia:Tendentious editors
--EngineerScotty 03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe it's (also) time to expand [[WP:DIS]] 

message: What would it take to fold Burden of proof together with Tendentious editors?  I'd rather have either than none - and we'll probably wind up with none if both get put to a formal vote in competition with each other. Durova 15:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's merge these two proposals into one 

message: Here's my attempt at merging the two:
Wikipedia:Tendentious editors/Merger proposal
Added some comments to the talk page.  Main issues (other than style issues) are when blocking/banning kicks in; and the issue of stare decisis on Wikipedia.  --EngineerScotty 20:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: It has become apparent that this proposal largely duplicates material in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Although the latter is a guideline rather than a policy, there seems to be no strong inclination to continue considering this as a policy proposal. Mangoe 17:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending consideration of this proposal