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.
--
Raphael