Re: [WikiEN-l] Anti-bias (was D.V.)

Slimvirgin wrote: "Dry and disinterested" is not necessarily good writing (hence readable writing), nor should the notion be synonymous with encyclopedic writing, or our general interpretation of it. Good writing is both balanced and interesting. And "cite excellent sources" is always controversial, as my sources tend to be more excellent than others, and thus tend to represent different views and hence are rejected. Further, there are issues which contradict common dogma or history, yet are extremely obvious to any neutral observation. For example to state 'the Vietnam War was as much (if not more) anti-democratic as it was "anti-communist"' is simply the purist truism of that history --it shouldnt be considered either POV or controversial. It is however rejected by those who favor more detached, clinical language, which puts emphasis on the abstract, elite-view politiculars than on the human issues, the moral issues, or even the basic facts of what actually happened. The problem with being detached was once an issue with the Irish Potato Famine article, which was written with a focus on the particulars of a fungus and Catholic overpopulation rather than the socio-economic background or the human impact. Some still assert there was deliberate intent to cause human death, and though that assertion is considered by "detached" academics to be largely out of bounds, it's nevertheless an issue which required some treatment, if only to clarify it and the terms used. In that case, more "encyclopedic" emphasis meant objecting to treating the issue at all. Again, using detached language often only serves the detached POV. We're neither an encyclopedia for infants requiring strained meals, nor one for experts with all the excellent prerequisites. SV --- slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com