Jimmy Wales

and say, okay, but we can report on the dispute.

So, rather than trying to say abortion is a sin or abortion is a human right, you could say Catholic Church position is this, and the critics have responded thusly.

You'll start to hear a little of the Wikipedia style.

Because I believe that that's what a reader really wants.

They don't want to come and get one side of the story.

They want to come and say, okay, wait, hold on.

I actually want to understand what people are arguing about.

I want to understand both sides.

What are the best arguments here?

Yeah, exactly.

So, you know, oftentimes if you see something repeating, you think, huh, okay, well, why does it say that?

Often you'll be able to go on the talk page and read sort of what the debate was and how it was, and you can weigh in there and you can join in and say, oh, actually, I still think you've got it wrong.

Here's some more sources, here's some more information, maybe propose a compromise, that sort of thing.

And in my experience, it turns out that a lot of

Pretty ideological people on either side are actually more comfortable doing that because they feel confident in their beliefs.

I think it's the people who, and you'll find lots of them on Twitter, for example, they're not that confident in their own values and their own belief system.

And they feel fear or panic or anger if someone's disagreeing with them rather than saying, huh, okay, look, that's different from what I think.

Let me explain my position, which is where your more intellectually grounded person will come from.

Well, typically the subjects that are restricted are, we try to keep that as short as we can.

The most common type of case is if something's really big in the news or if some big online influencer says, ah, Wikipedia is wrong, go and do something about it.