We publish them fairly, which does not mean proportional to the
numbers who believe in them. It means fully enough to explain them
objectively in their own terms, and this goes for literally
everything--and I would say without any exception.
You are confusing voting for legislation with making an encyclopedia.
The number of people who hold a view is irrelevant.
On 7/15/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/14/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 14/07/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Speaking only for myself, I do not think it was a good idea to try to
> legislate for admins' judgment about links via BADSITES, which is why
> I got only briefly involved, then withdrew when I realized what was
> happening. What happened there is we were trolled and we fell for it.
Taking an argument to its logical conclusion is "trolling"?
It can be, yes. The logical conclusion of NPOV is that we publish
prominently the views of the vast majority of the world (including the
published world) on women and gays, for example, views that are
largely vile. So we understand that NPOV, like every other policy and
process, is to be applied with common sense. Wilfully ignoring the
common sense factor leads only to trouble, wikilawyering and, yes,
But we do publish them prominently.
No, we don't. If we were fairly to represent the majority of the
world's published sources on [[Gay]], we'd have to include in the lead
that people think homosexuality is a sin, and at [[Woman]], that most
people around the world think women are inferior to men.
We pay lip service to NPOV, and to BIAS, while quietly applying both
with common sense, which is how all the policies and processed need to
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: