--- Shane King wikipedia@dontletsstart.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 08:10:23PM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
--- Shane King wikipedia@dontletsstart.com
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 06:02:51PM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
So you think that in science pages, for
example,
space
should be given to different theories based on
their
relative popularity? This will wreak havock on evolution, not to mention gravity! Are you really serious? Mark
I'm not discussing what I think should be done,
I'm
discussing what I believe current policy to specify. I believe creationism has no place at all in an article on science. That's neither
here
nor there though.
Shane.
But if we take seriously the idea that if many
people
believe it it should be given space, you must do
that,
surely. Mark
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I must do what?
If you're saying I must put those views in articles, I disagree. I can choose not to edit those articles and let other people work on them.
If you're saying that if I do choose to work on articles, I'm obliged to put views in that I personally think to be wrong but are popular, then I think you're absolutely right. Like I said, I personally feel creationism has no place in an article on science. I don't edit to my personal feelings though, I edit to policy (or at least I try). That's why I said my personal feelings are neither here nor there: only what's currently policy matters.
Anyway, we're probably getting a bit off topic now, so I'll shut up. :)
Shane.
Hi - ok, let me give an example. Let's suppose that the religious right were able to muster a relatively small number of people to edit here on the evolution pages. Are you saying that, if there are a large number of people editing on the 'side' of that, then it should go in? If not, can you clarify what you did mean? Thanks, Mark
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com