Talk:Free Republic/Informal mediation

Relevant pages

Initial comment

Some issues you may want to consider:

This article relies almost solely on what we call "self-published" sources. Self published sources are permissible under certain conditions (See WP:ATT#Questionable_or_self-published_sources)
A Wikipedia article cannot be based solely on self-published sources. If this website is notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia (See WP:WEB), surely there should be a substantial number of secondary sources that describe the website, the people behind it, their views, etc. If such secondary sources are not available, then the article needs to be reduced in size to include just basic information from the self-published source (in this case the website "About us" or similar web pages.)
In Wikipedia we describe all significant viewpoints about a subject, so that the article can achieve a WP:NPOV status. We do that by finding secondary sources that describe these significant viewpoints, as well as describing the viewpoints expressed by the subject of the article (again, under the conditions set by the use of self-published sources.) This include, of course, any criticism, provided that such criticism is attributed to a reliable source and not asserted as a fact.

I would also want to dispel any misunderstandings about consensus. Consensus is not 5 to 3 or even 5 to 1 as I have seen people describing it in edit summaries and in this page. Consensus is the way that Wikipedia works: we build consensus through polite discussion and negotiation, with the caveat that editor's consensus cannot trump Wikipedia guidelines of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR (or any other policy).

From reading the discussions in this page, one could assume that there are editors that may be associated with the website itself. If that is the case, a warning may be needed: you may be in a conflict of interest. (See WP:COI). A conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the concerns or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.

Other editors may be "too close to the subject" (e.g. notable critics), and although this does not mean they are incapable of being neutral, they need to be aware that it may incline them in that direction.

As for the accusations of sockpuppetry, please note that it is remarkably simple to find out if there is such abuse (See WP:RFCU), and although using sockpuppets may be useful in some situations, using that as a subterfuge to bypass the three revert rule, is considered disruptive and may be basis from removing your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreements

Ground rules

Discuss the article, not the subject;
Discuss the edit, not the editor;
Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

Please state below your willingness to abide by these ground rules. Your signature will suffice

Step one agreement

Proposal

"Stubify" the current article to contain a very short description of the website freerepublic.com, marking the previous version as "pre-mediation". I ~~will propose~~ have created a version of the stub that could be considered. Talk:Free_Republic/Stub;
Parties agree not not add material to the article until there is agreement about the structure of the new article;
After agreeing to the new structure we will proceed to discuss the content for the different sections;
Parties agree to only add material to the article that has the full agreement of all involved. This will mean that we may end up with an article that you may not be 100% happy with, but that you "can live with" :

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please state below your agreement with the proposal above. Your signature will suffice

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--BenBurch 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-F.A.A.F.A. 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12ptHelvetica 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--RWR8189 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Lawyer2b 02:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Sounds like a plan to me. :-)[reply]