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
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
specific page attacking wikipedia in any shape or form...
Wikipedians don't simply dislike Conservapedia because it is critical of
endeavors, we dislike it because it is poorly
written and fundamentally
opposed to the spirit of inclusiveness and neutrality that Wikipedia
for. The same goes for Metapedia. It's a
lobby for a particular
subjects, not a fair and comprehensive
First of all, you appear to feel you have the right to represent what
as a group dislike. That feeling is without justification.
It would furthermore be quite legitimate to say that Encycopaedia
falls well short of the requirements of neutrality that Wikipedia sets
And yet that does not allow us to point a finger at Encyclopaedia
say that their compendium is a ridiculous endeavour.
The world really has space enough for more than one viewpoint. And it
has room for more than the "neutral viewpoint".
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: