On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 08:13:24AM -0800, Larry Sanger wrote:
more credible by actually presenting an argument that
we all ought to
understand "neutral" to mean whatever you think it does mean (your views
on this are none too clear to me; as best I can make out, you think it
I think we could do with a good definition of what "neutral" means. If
it means not supporting one view over the other, and giving all views
equal time, that can be a can of worms. If neutral means "not making
moral judgements about things", thats something I think we can all agree
on as being neutral.
I tend to disagree. I don't think we should
encourage anyone in this
regard. Give an inch, and they'll gladly take a mile. It's just far too
convenient as an excuse: "Oh, I know there was a little bias there, but I
was trying to provoke a debate." How conveeeeenient.
That approach does encourage laziness. But sometimes it is so
exhausting to defend an NPOV edit against partisans that it is tempting
to put in bias, so the opposite side will be more inclined to meet
somewhere in the middle.
Take the current article on fluorine for instance. It took no end of
effort to get the statements about fluoride out of the fluorine article
where they didn't belong; some folks insisted on linking fluoride with
dental health in the fluorine article, without any of the important
context that the fluoride article provides about the health risks of
fluoride.
The policy about "not deleting any information" really needs to be
revisited. I recommend rephrasing it as "don't delete any RELEVANT
information". This is an encyclopedia after all. Have we lost our
roots? Remember Denis Diderot.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw(a)reactor-core.org
Webpage:
http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2