I agree with the below.
And I'd also like to point out that NPOV is self-evidently *NOT* a big lie;
nor even a noble lie, maybe it's a white lie or an exaggeration at the very
worst. ;-)
2009/4/10 Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Bill Carter
<billdeancarter(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
These single article experiences sure seem to
crop up often, huh? Anyhow,
I'm talking about many articles involving one
subject: journalist Alan
Cabal.
It still proves absolutely nothing. Lets say this issue had "cropped
up", as you say, one thousand times. In terms of the things we talk
about on this mailing-list, that would be staggering, we wouldn't be
talking about anything else!
But wikipedia has around 2.8 million articles. A thousand articles are
a lot, but it's only 0.03% of the total. Looking at it from that
perspective, 99.97% can achieve some sort of NPOV, which is an
absolutely incredible result.
My point isn't that 99.97% of wikipedia articles don't have NPOV
problems (I have no idea what the number is, but I reckon it's high),
my point is that ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Saying
"article X has NPOV problems, therefore NPOV is a stupid and
unattainable policy" is an absurd argument, and if you argue that way
no one is going to take you seriously.
--Oskar
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect
world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect world would be
pretty ghastly though.