Hi Pete, thanks for adjusting my wording on PortlandWiki:Facets! Tl,dr version: Yeah, I exaggerated and oversimplified how things work on Wikipedia. Your wording is better. Long version: you're right of course that "shouting matches" are not allowed in Wikipedia as per wikipedia:WP:CIVIL, and POV warriors, when identified by more policy-savvy editors, never win, no matter how persistent they are. But unfortunately, from my experience there (not in situations where I was a party, but just observing/giving a third opinion), I've seen that when POV warriors refrain from directly lobbing insults, if they simply stick around for longer than their "opponent", and the article is not highly watched, they usually succeed at getting their POV version to stick. I think the main reason for this is that most content disputes are over obscure topics, and fall off the radar of the thousand or so core editors. Most disputes never reach the noticeboards, especially content disputes, and center on esoteric topics. Even when an administrator or other experienced editor notices the dispute, they often lack knowledge of the subject matter to know which person (or both) is pushing a POV, and so will only mete out warnings/blocks/bans to the one with poorer manners. It's so much easier to address behavior than content, and indeed, without specialist knowledge, it's the best we can do.
While I don't think Citizendium's model of expert approval of all content would work for Wikipedia (or even Citizendium, judging by its track record), "polite POV pushers" are something of an unrecognized problem on Wikipedia. Certainly not Wikipedia's worst problem by any stretch, but one of them.
"Shouting matches" was definitely an exaggeration, and I'm glad you removed that. While they of course do exist on Wikipedia, they aren't well tolerated. However, I have seen belittling, condescension, and general disrespect of good faith editors occur frequently, even from administrators. And it is usually tolerated, because most feel that it's not blatant enough incivility to warrant bringing it to a noticeboard and stirring up drama about. Not shouting matches, but perhaps equally harmful to the project and our dwindling retention of new editors.
Anyhow, thanks for looking over the proposal. I think I've started to think that a simple commenting system like some wikis have (DavisWiki for example) would probably be more simple, more understandable, and therefore more popular and desirable than the facets thing, but I'm curious to know what you think. -kotra (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)