| Revision as of 15:54, 25 August 2006 editAKADriver (talk | contribs)1,449 edits mediation case created | Latest revision as of 07:04, 4 December 2024 edit undoJJMC89 bot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Administrators3,665,857 editsm Moving Category:Misplaced Pages Medcab closed cases to Category:Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal closed cases per Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy | ||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | === Discussion === | ||
| {{Medcabstatus | |||
| ⚫ | {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Comments_Section}} | ||
| <!-- Mediator, please change from new to open when accepted, to status closed when the case is closed. --> | |||
| :Providing subjective "customer reviews" seems to run directly counter to the goals of presenting a neutral point of view. I've seen whole articles deleted for reading too much like a buyer's guide (in the interest of full disclosure, I was the AfD nominator in one of those cases). As it is, there's no precedent in automotive articles for extensive reviews/criticism, aside from those vehicles whose historical impact is defined by their critical response, such as the "]" ]. That goes for positive or negative responses - and in this case ''only'' negative opinions are presented. | |||
| |status = new | |||
| :Another mediator has suggested that the parties involved aren't calm enough for mediation yet and that administrator intervention might be a better option. Upon giving it some thought, I'm retracting my mediation request for now. — ] ] 16:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |article = | |||
| |requestor = | |||
| |parties = | |||
| |mediators = | |||
| |comment = | |||
| }} | |||
| <!-- The comment section above shows up on the case page along with the listing of mediators --> | |||
| == Mediation Case: 2006-08-25 Honda S2000 == | |||
| I propose to find a mutual agreement as to what amount subjective (positive as well as critical) content should be published in the articles of Misplaced Pages as online Encyclopedia. Literal Encyclopedias generally show the features and characteristics of articles in a quite neutral manner. Anyway, Misplaced Pages - as a well known open source instrument for providing and deriving information - is in my opinion expected to provide also subjective information comparable to the customer's reviews in the amazon online bookstore which reviews are often highly appreciated in the decision making of the customers. The basic question of the pending dispute could accordingly be simply the question to what extent this subjective information should be added to the article's description. I'd like to mediate in this case and if you agree I'd like to keep the proceedings confidential because the behaviour and argumentation of the parties is likely to change dependent on the publicity of the posts. | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Request_header}} | |||
| fly 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :IMO, it should shortened; it doesn't need to leave anything out really; just leave a lot of the details on the cited pages.. eg something like this; | |||
| === Request Information=== | |||
| ::''The car has been criticised for low torque and its torque curve, the short gearing (resulting in noisy motorway cruising), aswell as oversteer in early versoins and somewhat still in current versions despite XYZ to fix it. '' | |||
| <!-- Please leave your answers as concise as possible. --> | |||
| :That would leave all the factual critiscm, without it dominating the article. ~ ] 01:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Request made by:''' — ] ] 15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ; ''Where is the issue taking place?'' | |||
| : ] and ] | |||
| ; ''Who's involved?'' | |||
| : ], ], ], a few anonymous users and others | |||
| ; ''What's going on?'' | |||
| : An edit war has flared up regarding the encyclopedic value of a "criticism" section. I claim that it's not (and worse, seems to be a thinly veiled POV attack). ] claims that removing it amounts to censorship. ] believes consensus is in my favor. I have attempted to compromise by simply shortening the section to improve the way it flows in the article, but that gets reverted to the long-winded version. Any attempts to shorten or remove that section are reverted by ] within 24 hours. | |||
| ; ''What would you like to change about that? | |||
| : Outside input is required as to determine whether the debate is as one-sided as ] believes. If my position is just one of two equally valid ones, that's okay, we have work to do then. If either position is in fact a consensus, then action of some sort is needed to calm radical opinions (mine or his). | |||
| ; ''Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?'' | |||
| : My talk page is fine. | |||
| === Mediator response === | |||
| <!-- MEDIATORS: Change the status at the top of the page to "open" when you take it so our bot can put it in the proper section.--> | |||
| === Compromise offers === | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Compromise}} | |||
| : | |||
| ⚫ | === Discussion === | ||
| ⚫ | {{Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Comments_Section}} | ||
| : | |||
Latest revision as of 07:04, 4 December 2024
Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Misplaced Pages is based on consensus.
- Providing subjective "customer reviews" seems to run directly counter to the goals of presenting a neutral point of view. I've seen whole articles deleted for reading too much like a buyer's guide (in the interest of full disclosure, I was the AfD nominator in one of those cases). As it is, there's no precedent in automotive articles for extensive reviews/criticism, aside from those vehicles whose historical impact is defined by their critical response, such as the "Unsafe at Any Speed" Chevrolet Corvair. That goes for positive or negative responses - and in this case only negative opinions are presented.
- Another mediator has suggested that the parties involved aren't calm enough for mediation yet and that administrator intervention might be a better option. Upon giving it some thought, I'm retracting my mediation request for now. — AKADriver ☎ 16:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose to find a mutual agreement as to what amount subjective (positive as well as critical) content should be published in the articles of Misplaced Pages as online Encyclopedia. Literal Encyclopedias generally show the features and characteristics of articles in a quite neutral manner. Anyway, Misplaced Pages - as a well known open source instrument for providing and deriving information - is in my opinion expected to provide also subjective information comparable to the customer's reviews in the amazon online bookstore which reviews are often highly appreciated in the decision making of the customers. The basic question of the pending dispute could accordingly be simply the question to what extent this subjective information should be added to the article's description. I'd like to mediate in this case and if you agree I'd like to keep the proceedings confidential because the behaviour and argumentation of the parties is likely to change dependent on the publicity of the posts. fly 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- IMO, it should shortened; it doesn't need to leave anything out really; just leave a lot of the details on the cited pages.. eg something like this;
- The car has been criticised for low torque and its torque curve, the short gearing (resulting in noisy motorway cruising), aswell as oversteer in early versoins and somewhat still in current versions despite XYZ to fix it.
- That would leave all the factual critiscm, without it dominating the article. ~ Bungalowbill 01:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)