Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Third opinion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
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)[reply]

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)[reply]