On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:07:41 -0000, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Richard Holton wrote
How would we be able to claim NPOV when certain groups are not allowed to participate?.
I think that is one of those over-interpretations of what NPOV says.
Take an example: non-English speakers. In effect they can't access the English Wikipedia. Can we make the English Wikipedia reflect the aspect of the world, that well under 10% of people are native speakers of English, and, what, another 10% learn to speak English? Well, I hope so; NPOV means that all contributions should take into account that not everyone is a native anglophone. It is anyway not the same issue as saying writing in English (or any other language) excludes most of the planet.
Try not to introduce entirely separate topics into the discussion, and try not to quote out of context. Yes, we exclude people who can't read English from participating in the English Wikipedia (though of course there are MANY other language Wikipedias).. Literacy in a particular language has nothing to do with dis-allowing participation based on beliefs or affiliations.
Do we have confidence in the Wikipedia way, or do we not?
Actually, I do, pretty much. The way says 'come one, come all'. Doesn't say that people can behave as they like.
This is precisely my point. We do not tolerate certain _behaviors_. But people of all beliefs are welcome to participate.
What is more, the way is distrustful of legalism - and all the better for that. Those who push the limits of the system start rowing away from the bulk of the community. The important part of that is that those who _do not do that_ should expect protection.
No, Charles. The "Wikipedia way" is to assume good faith until proved otherwise. That is a core principle of Nikis in general, and Wikipedia in particular.
Do you really believe that the Wikipedia way is "distrustful legalism"? I hope I have misunderstood you.
-Rich Holton
en.wikipedia:User:Rholton