User talk:Ender3

Welcome to Wikipedia! I saw that you had made a rather large edit to CISPA to include mainly information espousing the views of the proponents of the bill. Wikipedia is supposed to state the arguments for and against any point of view, clearly marked as such; but it should not itself propagate either side in a controversial issue. So please be careful. You can find a lot of information about the policies of Wikipedia here (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) and elsewhere. I wish you a happy future as a Wikipedia editor! Cerberus™ (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

CISPA

Thanks for your friendly reply. I agree with you that the introduction should not include so many quotations from either side: I would agree with incorporating the ones you mentioned into the Opposition section.

However, I do feel that the introduction should contain a very brief summary of the history and current status of the bill. Ideally, it would look like this: 1. main argument for the bill, preferably in a few (but no more) sentences; 2. main argument against the bill; 3. recent changes proposed by the co-sponsors including argument; 4. main argument against new version. Each of these points should be only a few sentences, so concise, and clearly marked as such. Each argument should refer to a proponent or opponent, respectively. Something like, "Proponents, like co-sponsor X, claim that the bill is good because of Y. Opponents, like organization Z, claim that it is bad because of Q".

But that is a lot of work, and it should be extremely well balanced, or everybody will revolt (including you or me!). I'm not sure I feel up to this task right now; do you? In the meantime, adding things is much safer than removing things, since it is a highly controversial topic. So, when in doubt, don't delete, but add. How do you feel about that? And any substantial addition should probably contain a reliable reference. Another good option (but a lot of work) is proposing changes or draft versions on the Talk page: that way people can discuss things and give you their input before any major changes to the actual article are made.

I saw that you added a POV template: that's probably not a bad idea.

I also saw that you took out the "copyright and patents" bit: but why? Last time I checked, the bill stated that protecting "information" and R&D and IP and whatnot was a central goal. I think I feel obligated to put that back in, if you will forgive me: if those bits have definitely been taken out of the official proposal, by all means delete them again, but then please provide a reference.

P.S. Perhaps we had better discuss these things on the Talk page anyway? I'm posting this here now so that you won't miss my reply. Cerberus™ (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. About your balancing edits: I am all for making the pro argument clearer and such, but you edited a sentence that was supposed to show the kind of criticism that opponents present. Their criticism isn't balanced in the way you would like it to be, so balancing it would not reflect the criticism. To exaggerate a bit, you can't paraphrase Mao as saying that perhaps capitalism was not perfect in all respects: he hated it! But it should be clearly marked as being his opinion, not "Wikipedia's". Cerberus™ (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)