G'day Steve,
On 3/14/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
*I* wouldn't believe the article because of
its author. There's more
to accuracy than just citing sources. Pedophiles can probably write
as good an article about mathematics, psychology, anatomy, politics,
history or theology, but when it comes to articles about the
exploitation of minors I would be as likely to give an article by a
pedophile as much credit as I'd give to an article about global
warming written by a road lobbyist.
I thought we were striving for balance here. Lobbyists are usually
fairly good at explaining one side of a given story. As long as they
don't have control of the article, their input should be welcomed. On
We *don't* strive for balance. We strive for a neutral point-of-view.
The distinction is small, but vital.
the other hand, paedophiles have a particular stigma
attached to them
that would be pretty damaging if there was Yet Another Wikipedia
Scandal.
Oh, goodness me, yes.
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 13/03/2006