On 7/26/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Compared to Conservapedia, I don't see them having
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
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
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]]