On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Delirium <delir...@hackish.org> wrote: > On 2/19/12 2:29 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: >> >> The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address >> the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In >> this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy >> has for long been used to remove new research no-one has even refuted, >> much less there being an intractable controversy over the issue. > > In some cases I think *that* is also the correct response, though it's > difficult to sort out how to distinguish when it is and isn't. In my own > field (artificial intelligence), there is a certain amount of excessive > recentism in Wikipedia articles--- some new paper will come out with a grand > new result or critique, will get a flurry of coverage in New Scientist and > similar publications, and the Wikipedia article will be updated with this > "cutting-edge AI" result.
I completely agree that *sometimes* it the correct response. I completely disagree that it is a WP:UNDUE issue. Maybe we should have a WP:SPECULATIVE policy page. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
