Fred Bauder wrote:
No question it contained an attack, including a link
to edit our
user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore
very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved.
Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of the
unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like)
yields removal of the link
Is this tongue-in-cheek, or are you actually suggesting that we
ought to be applying this sort of "unwritten rule" in this manner?
(At least while it contained the personal attack).
Yeah, I just noticed that, too. The edit war died down and
our link was restored not because all concerned agreed that the
policy-that-must-not-be-called-BADSITES was nonsense, but because
Moore removed his link. If his was still there, I'm sure our
argument would still be raging.
Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent
people whose
viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.
Oh, my. I really thought you were. How, then, is this remotely
compatible with NPOV?