But we do publish them prominently. We also publish other views
prominently. We present them fairly, in order that people may see them
and learn. I at least trust that prejudice will be dispelled by
providing the materials for knowledge. This is not blind--it is based
on the historical truth that it is those who want to sustain prejudice
who do he censoring.
On 7/14/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/07, James Farrar
On 14/07/07, Slim Virgin
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,
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: