Andrew Gray wrote:
On 27 June 2010 06:47, Elias Friedman elipongo@gmail.com wrote:
You're proposing to overturn the rules against POV forking? Seems like a bad idea to me - the encyclopedia would shatter into an unnavigable mess if every interest group were to split off their own versions of articles.
I think there's a valid issue here, but there's a balance to be struck between:
- X as it occurs in one specific context
- X from the perspective of one viewpoint
So it would be legitimate to have an article on [[Economic philosophies of the Something Party]] and one on [[Economic philosophies of the Other Party]]; it would not be legitimate to have an article on [[Economics (Somethingian)]] as a counter to [[Economics (Otherian)]].
Where you draw the line, though, is quite tricky...
It's not so tricky to say that (a) NPOV is never negotiable in an article, and (b) a POV content fork is not a distinction between topics, but a way of spreading out content according to editorial view. We have never accepted that POV content forks have a place in WP. (They have a very large place elsewhere, which is a good reason to stick to our guns on this.)
Charles