[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[fredbaud at waterwiki.info]

Let's suppose, James Farrar, that the "point of view" that is being linked to was an accusation that you, James Farrar, were an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, a registered sex offender, a Nazi (Plug in what ever would cause the most trouble in your personal situation). Now, how does that link look to you?

Fred

>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar at gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 02:58 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>
>On 21/09/2007, Durova <nadezhda.durova at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The reason NPOV is the most basic of principles is that without it, no
>> > source of information can be trusted, or is worth even producing.
>> > Fred, your well-intentioned policies will have the unintended end of
>> > destroying our credibility.
>>
>> I agree entirely. Let us not forget which road is paved with good
>> intentions.
>>
>> Exactly how is NPOV at odds with Fred's position?
>
>If I may quote [[WP:5]]: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which
>means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view.
>Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view;
>presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any
>given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point
>represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the
>best view"."
>
>Allowing some points of view to be censored clearly violates this.
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>