I agree with Thomas. We have enough problems without introducing a deliberate degree of non-objectivity into the proceedings. the day WP starts tending to be on the sympathetic side, will be the last day anyone can trust it. The next step will be saying, to tend to be on the negative side for articles about para-science. And then to whatever a pressure group wants. NPOV is one of the principles that does not accept compromise. Like honesty.
On 10/6/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/10/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Perfection is an unattainable goal. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it, but we do need to be realistic. No article is ever going to be 100% neutral, it's impossible.
What I'm objecting to is the implication that we shouldn't actually be aiming for it, though. "Biographies should ideally be neutral but on the road to that ideal we should be extra careful about including the negative content" is fine, it accepts the real-world problems involved with litigious subjects without compromising the ultimate goal. But "biographies should tend to be sympathetic" isn't fine because it sets an incorrect goal. Biographies of living persons may tend to be sympathetic due to systemic bias but it's not because they _should_ be.
Agreed. It is an important distinction.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l