[WikiEN-l] Is NPOV non-negotiable? (and if so, why are debating it?)

[Wily D]

On 10/16/07, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy at gmail.com> wrote:
> When the BADSITES movement first started, I hoped that time would show
> that it was a policy which was fundamentally incompatible with NPOV.
> Time did just that, and after MakingLights and MichaelMoore, I think
> there's a pretty clear understanding that, in the case of notable
> subjects, BADSITES and NPOV can't coexist.  This is what I had hoped
> people would eventually see.
>
> What I never even fathomed, however, was that some people, when faced
> with a conflict between NPOV and BADSITES, would argue that NPOV is
> the one that has to go!
>
> ------
>
>
> So, for example, not to pick on Fred, but he seems to be in this camp.
>  Let's assume, as we must, that he wouldn't REALLY have had us
> redirect Michael Moore to Clown.  I'm still puzzled as to what his
> stance is when he says :
>
>
> >>>Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose
> >>>viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.
>
> >>How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?
>
> >Not at all. That's why it needs to be out in the open.
>
> Fred further explains,"I did not suggest it or support it. I am only
> noting what we did. And that the community supports it"
>
>
> It stills seems like Fred's basic understanding of the BADSITES situation is:
>
> 1.  BADSITES (and its ilk) demand deletion of all links to harassment.
> 2.  Michael Moore was a harasser, his link should have been deleted.
> 3.  But, overwhelming consensus demanded, in spite of policy, that the
> link still be included.  When asked what he learned from the Michael
> Moore experience, Fred said he learned,"If a powerful leftwing
> celebrity attacks a rightwing Wikipedia editor on his website, his
> supporters on Wikipedia should be able, as a practical matter, to
> prevent removal of links to his site."  and "sometimes the bad guys
> win".
> 4.  NPOV means that all the rules SHOULD be applied equally to everyone.
> 5. But since prominent subjects will have enough supporters to
> overturn BADSITES in
> some cases, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent
> people whose viewpoint we support."  This isn't consistent with NPOV,
> but be may as well make it explicit.
>
> It just seems like any way you slice it, NPOV and BADSITES don't get
> along.  What shocks me, however, is that even among people who appear
> to recognize this, I don' see any loss of support for BADSITES.
> Instead,  it seems like there's a grudging acceptance that NPOV is
> going to have to be bent a little to accomodate the more important
> goal of BADSITES.
>
> Am I right?  I'm totally reading tea leaves here when I summarize what
> I think Fred's POV is. (fred, please correct my errors).
>
>
> But that's the impression I'm left with, after reading  the
> discussion.   If NPOV is non-negotiable, why is its application under
> negotiation?  And if a policy or principle comes down which isn't
> consistent with NPOV-- which one should govern?
>
> Alec
>

NPOV is a foundational principle, we're not in a position to override
it.  The short of it is that there's a single policy one can invoke to
override WP:NPOV, and it's WP:FORK.

Cheers, WilyD