Wikipedia talk:Third opinion: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→Non-neutral descriptions: comment |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
If no objections are raised, I'll change it myself in a few days... [[User:Jobjörn|Jobjörn]] ([[User talk:Jobjörn|Talk]] ° [[Special:Contributions/Jobj%C3%B6rn|contribs]]) 18:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC) |
If no objections are raised, I'll change it myself in a few days... [[User:Jobjörn|Jobjörn]] ([[User talk:Jobjörn|Talk]] ° [[Special:Contributions/Jobj%C3%B6rn|contribs]]) 18:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
:I mildly object. It doesn't really matter to me if the description is biased. I can look at the description, look at the talk page, look at the article's edit history, and form my own opinion. The bias of the plaintiff doesn't affect me, and I doubt it affects anyone else when the plea is clearly biased. The description is helpful to me. I don't have enough time as it is, and I would prefer to see a summary of the dispute so that I can determine if I want to spend my time getting involved. |
|||
:I say, leave the description requirement in. It does no harm, and it encourages editors to experience what it's like to write something neutral (even if they fail to do so). =[[User:Axlq|Axlq]] 21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:51, 25 December 2006
Archive 1 - February 11, 2005 to December 18, 2006
Non-neutral descriptions
Perhaps the easiest way out of this problem would be to not require descriptions at all? More often than not, descriptions are biased - even when that is not intended. Whatever the case, a provider of a 3O must look up the article, so the description is actually quite redundant. I therefore suggest we remove that requirement and just require "[[article]] ~~~~~", the article in question and a timestamp.
If no objections are raised, I'll change it myself in a few days... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I mildly object. It doesn't really matter to me if the description is biased. I can look at the description, look at the talk page, look at the article's edit history, and form my own opinion. The bias of the plaintiff doesn't affect me, and I doubt it affects anyone else when the plea is clearly biased. The description is helpful to me. I don't have enough time as it is, and I would prefer to see a summary of the dispute so that I can determine if I want to spend my time getting involved.
- I say, leave the description requirement in. It does no harm, and it encourages editors to experience what it's like to write something neutral (even if they fail to do so). =Axlq 21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)