Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-09 source documents
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-06-09 source documents
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator and refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.
[edit] Request Information
- Request made by: Jimwilson 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- ...
- Who's involved?
- ...
- What's going on?
- ...
While attempting to cite source documents to correct inaccuracies regarding the recent release of the video of Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon, my edits were removed. I entered into discussion on the subject which lead to an overall agreement, however apparently Wikipedia has inflexible guidelines when it comes to citing source documents in an article.
It is this inflexibility that places inaccurate information (cited from the media) above the source documents which contradict the media's coverage. The source documents were not reported on by the media nor by academia and therefore, by rule, can't be included in the article. These are recorded legal documents originated by the government. They are short and concise, and contradict what is reported in the article.
- What would you like to change about that?
- ...
I would like to have the government source documents take precedence over the cited media coverage in the section concerning Judicial Watch. I would like the 'Security camera video' section edited to reflect what actually happened with the release, as supported by the documentation.
- If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
- ...
I can be reached at jimwilson2121@hotmail.com
- Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
Perhaps after I have more experience.
-
- This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
- what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.
- ...
[edit] Mediator response
This is not a case for mediation, as it concerns a policy change. I would suggest visiting Wikipedia:Village pump and suggesting the change there. Consensus is required to commit policy changes. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence}} for misconduct and {{Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Evidence3RR}} for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil.
Wikipedia:Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.
[edit] Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
[edit] Comments by others
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 Wikipedia is based on consensus.
[edit] Discussion
We as mediators cannot help you with this case as it does not involve a dispute with a specific user, but rather a problem with Wikipedia policy in general. I don't know who you can talk to to bring up a problem with Wikipedia policy, but since MONGO is an admin, he probably does know and has already talked to them. I don't have a better answer for you than he gave, and I suspect none of the other mediators here do either. Ideogram 05:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
