Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-30 Petals Around the Rose

Could any person(s) who wishes to make a short statement about this case - please add a new section - titled: Statement - 'Your Wikipedia username'.

Thanks- Wikipedian2 (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement - 'Ztobor' (meh)
Never thought I'd see this in mediation. I believe that the option to delete the solution is not as to how harmful it is, but how useful it is to the encyclopedia.

The resolution to not include the solution will not "revert" the article to a "neutral state". In all truth, there is no "neutral state" for any article. I also don't see how putting the solution into the page is "harmful" at all. All it does is provide another piece of information to add onto the pile. There is no real tangible reason to leave it out, as it does not violate copyright or break any laws. In fact, Wikipedia as a whole has a lot of information in it that would be breaking many laws in countries, including the United States and Canada. This article is a pittance of a threat compared to articles like DeCSS.

A limerick, haiku, code, or drawing would be nice to include on the page if it were to be created, and should certainly be put before the solution, but Wikipedia has the habit of stating information very tersely, and this style should not be given up for the sake of one article.

Well, there's my twopence. ZtObOr 21:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediator Notes
Clearly, Established users who understand the way Wikipedia works and how the solution should be included under that. Unfortunatly those not fully understanding Wikipedia are removing the solution - A clear statement needs to be addressed that the solution is within five pillars and should not be changed without community consent.

Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement - C.Fred
The problem is, there is a clear statement of the situation in the article as a comment. Not only have some of the newer editors been deleting the solution, they've also been rewriting the note themselves!

Frankly, at some level, I think taking this to the mediation cabal was an end run around discussion of the situation. proposed mediation having made no other edits to the talk page.

That said, I favor keeping the status quo: keep the solution in the article and do not delete it out of concerns that it "ruins" the puzzle or is "against the rules". I don't see how this is different from any other situation covered by WP:Spoiler. Consensus was previously reached on the talk page. If it needs altered, it should start with discussion there and not with an end run of the talk page - especially by a user who acknowledges a conflict of interest in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement - Trenchant (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I strongly think it would maintain a neutral stance to not show the solution. Why? Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge. Thats what encylopedias are for. Ontop of that, this is a public encylopedia. I see absolutely no need to show a solution. If someone wants to know the answer to the puzzle could they not just try it? At that point if they still could not find the solution I'm sure they could ask a friend to try the puzzle. One of them would solve it. It's not a very challenging puzzle.

It is stated in the rules that the answer should not be disclosed. It's not very helpful if the second search result on google shows up as a solution to the puzzle! That expresses how there is a harm in showing the solution. Now what happens if a solution is not shown? Then a user would have to go through multiple pages of google results.

As for the conflict of interest portion. It is not a conflict of interest. Why? That website isn't public. It was made as a Flash CS3 test. I've owned the domain for several years now and in that time it has been inactive. If you cared to spend any time on the website you would notice that. The score board alone as 3 individuals on it. One would be myself and 2 others are friends I had test the application. With that said I fail to see a conflict of interest.

By the way. I believe showing the solution would get past this "pillar" Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view.