Wikipedia:Requests for comment/How to present a case: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
#Context: 1 syntax correction (added missing word); corrected awkward ending of sentence by adding the missing word "instead" |
#Expertise of the users: Added missing/correct punctuation; made 2 grammar/syntax/usage corrections (changed "on" to "upon", changed "and" to "as well as") |
||
Line 34:
==Expertise of the users==
Most users are not subject experts, but some are. This is why RFCs, unlike ArbCom cases, may come to conclusions on content. In practice, users are likely to be cautious about basing a ruling on the grounds that one side is right in a content dispute. There are exceptions to this
Wikipedia is not collectively hostile toward the documenting of minority views
Content issues are complicated and take time to figure out. Other approaches may be indicated. Instead of arguing that somebody is advancing a nutty conspiracy theory with no credibility, find statements on talk pages where they express a desire to advocate a cause, instances of them removing well-sourced information, instances of them accusing those who disagree with them of conspiracy, and other more concrete and self-explanatory things. Almost none of the cases which fail resolution at RFC and become Arbitration cases have actually required careful attention to content issues to get the necessary result.
| |||