Oh yes, I'm sure faux-intellectual white supremacists and Christian
fundamentalists absolutely need to be heard through their own
"encyclopedia". It's not like they would disavow the rights of others to
speak freely.
Oh wait, yeah they would.
While obviously freedom of speech is meaningless unless you defend the
rights of every nut job and hate monger to have his say, I certainly don't
have to condone what they are saying or support their project. Just because
I wouldn't forbid them from saying what they please doesn't mean I have to
advocate that they do so. The less heard from these crackpots the better.
On 7/25/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/26/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Compared to Conservapedia, I don't see them
having any
specific page attacking wikipedia in any shape or form...
Wikipedians don't simply dislike Conservapedia because it is critical of
our
endeavors, we dislike it because it is poorly
written and fundamentally
opposed to the spirit of inclusiveness and neutrality that Wikipedia
stands
for. The same goes for Metapedia. It's a
lobby for a particular
viewpoint on
subjects, not a fair and comprehensive
encyclopedic endeavor.
First of all, you appear to feel you have the right to represent what
wikipedians
as a group dislike. That feeling is without justification.
It would furthermore be quite legitimate to say that Encycopaedia
Britannica
falls well short of the requirements of neutrality that Wikipedia sets
for itself.
And yet that does not allow us to point a finger at Encyclopaedia
Britannica and
say that their compendium is a ridiculous endeavour.
The world really has space enough for more than one viewpoint. And it
certainly
has room for more than the "neutral viewpoint".
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l