The whole concept of "ban" (like removal) is stupid. Wikipedia should be a tree of various interpretations. With single topic, I want to see texts from all sides.
> Wikipedia should be a tree of various interpretations. With single topic, I want to see texts from all sides.
I can tell you right now that that's a utopian vision.
Most "sides" would be spam. Wikipedia has elaborate filters to keep spammers out, from IP range blocking to URLs you can't use in edits if you want the edit to actually go through. Since spam can be automated, and since there's a person on the other end of that automation hoping for a payout, it seeps into pretty much everything that isn't actively maintained.
> Wikipedia should be a tree of various interpretations
I don't disagree, but this doesn't seem to be remotely compatible with Wikipedia's ostensible mission. Anything hinting of a "point of view" (or that an editor can justify as being a POV) gets swiftly shut down.
> What is written is more important than who writes it. The content must conform with Wikipedia's policies, including being verifiable by published sources. Editors' opinions, beliefs, personal experiences, unreviewed research, libelous material, and copyright violations will not remain. Wikipedia's software allows easy reversal of errors, and experienced editors watch and patrol bad edits.
(note: I'm not trying to claim "articles on wikipedia are neutral, see!" - the linked page simply provides a lot of information and a lot of links about that challenge)
Interpretations should still stay with the facts and be legal. And there are also many attempts to bury facts and interpretations for whatever reason. Removing anyone who is in harsh conflict with the mission of Wikipedia is justified.
I thought about that as well, many articles are controlled by a little clique of opinionated and partisan moderators. It'd be good if there could be forks of certain pages in which certain viewpoints are being suppressed.
