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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/10/2007, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.