User talk:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-FactsFromPOV

Cui bono

The problem I see with this approach is that it encourages personal attacks. In my own experience while mediating, the "cui bono" mindset has led people to accuse me of belonging into the opposing camp, because if I said such-and-such, which supports the other side, I must be on the other side. — Sebastian 05:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fruit of the poisoned tree

I'm afraid I don't see the red thread in this section here. If information can only be found on a "poisoned tree", then I think it is better not to include it. We're not the CIA here; our objective is not to gather hard to get information, but provide information you would hope to find in an encyclopedia. — Sebastian 05:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Example from WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation

Thank you for the compliment! To be honest, the classification was a bit of a tight rope walk as many people at Wikipedia equate "biased" with "unreliable". But I feel that it worked out pretty well in calming down edit wars, and I would be happy to support any attempt to institute a similar system in other areas of Wikipedia. — Sebastian 05:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ratings by Intelligence Collection Managers

It's interesting to see how the professionals do it and this list offers good criteria to assess sources. But I'm afraid that, as a policy or guideline, this would be too complicated for a project like Wikipedia, which relies on volunteers of all walks of life, many of which (such as me) do not speak English on a native level. We need a simple system. The main requirement you need in any content disputes is a healthy compromise for both sides. The Sri Lanka system provided that, because it offered a compromise between a statement being included or not. — Sebastian 05:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)