Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/6/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's their site, and it seems at least that these rules are consistent with their philosophy.
Actually they don't seem to define what their counterpart to NPOV is. For example, is it ok to have an article which states all the horrible things that communists have done, and none of the horrible things Americans have done? In any normal, even "conservative" encyclopaedia, this would still be a glaring omission. If you don't define some kind of bounds or some central position, the whole thing just becomes propaganda or worse.
It's up to them to determine at what pace such things will evolve, but at some point failure to do this will make them unable to properly define their own constituency. At this point it appears to support some philosophy of Christian conservatism, and that should sustain it for a while. If your example holds water there is ample reason to support its continued existence. Religious conservatives tend to acknowledge immoral acts as a natural part of the leftist landscape, but can be particularly outraged when their own supporters compund these same acts with hypocrisy.
Ec