On 7/4/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Nothing to do with NPOV. Just the old deletionist
vs
inculsionist battles.
Dont crap on my soapbox, kid.
No but seriously, it does relate to NPOV, as NPOV
guides not only how articles are written, but what
constitutes encyclopedicality... ness. People who
understand what NPOV means will understand what an
encyclopedia is.
Doubtful. Historicaly most encyclopedias have not been NPOV.
To say its just inclusion or disinclusion is to
ignore
the fact that the rationale for either must be NPOV,
ie. encyclopedicality... ness. Otherwise Wikipedia
becomes just a wiki and not a 'Pedia.
Doesnt it?
S
Of course the problem here is that prior to wikipedia no one sat down
to work out solid defintion of what an encyclopedia is.
NPOV does has a role to play of course. You use it along with the
verifabiltiy stuff. Non only should there be enough information to
write an article but enough to write an NPOV article. This does not
appear to be universialy accepted though.
--
geni