charles matthews wrote:
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote
So, Wikipedia editors need not self-censor, while engaged in writing the encyclopedia articles. As decent people, they will self-censor in talk page discussion. Self-censorship is of course a basic social requirement.
So decency in article pages is forbidden, even if you can be decent without loosing any informational content? The problem with this approach is, that you will loose a lot of readers and editors that way. Some of you will even be happy about that, but NPOV is in severe danger, if you are offending editors, who are members of a cultural resp. religious minority. In the end you will have an American/British/Christian encyclopedia. If this is what you're aiming at, I would not be interested. You'd waste a big chance for intercultural exchange and a true neutral point of view.
Too many assumptions. I don't know why you think that Christians might not be offended, at some things:
I never said so. But since Christians are the majority, their opinion will be heard in the poll surveys, that are IMHO carried out way too often. Why do you distract the discussion to countries like Armenia or Nanjing? I am talking about 1.3 billion people, who happen to be a minority on the english language Wikipedia.
[...]
Actually the only way not to offend anyone is to avoid all controversial topics. It was decided, long ago, not to do that, and not to give the kind of treatment you might find in government-approved history books.
I disagree. It is possible to present controversial topics in a non-offensive way by presenting the differing point of views, balancing their weight and establishing a consensus among all interested parties. It happens all the time on Wikipedia.
Unfortunately sometimes polls decide how a controversial topic should be presented. Thereby Wikipedia will become an Ochlocracy resp. Mobocracy, which is bad - even for articles like Armenia and Nanjing.