On 7/14/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
> 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