>On 21/09/2007, Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)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.
Yes, but what this line of argument consistently fails to establish is how
the refusal to link to a site constitutes such a violation. WP:NOT#Not
censored and WP:NPOV are weighty issues, and I expect the people who advance
this argument to explain that linkage in a cogent manner.
The only issue I can see is that this would carve an exception to the
guideline WP:CITE. And if we can proscribe reasonable limits to that
exception that may be a healthy solution.
-Durova