As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are absurd or pathetic, it took me a
bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51 ("Wikipedia's entry on
Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human
life.")
The coverage in his article and in [[Practical Ethics]] doesn't match the controversy
it created and doesn't pinpoint *why* it created a such a controversy.
Yeah, I'm aware of {{sofixit}}.
[[User:Pjacobi]]
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:48:54 -0700
Von: Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com>
An: charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Betreff: Re: [WikiEN-l] Alleged Liberal Bias
Even if Conservapedia are raving lunatics (and I agree
with David on
that),
paying careful attention to our critics is a useful exercise. If you're
really interested Fred, make a list of smart people and try to pry
specific,
constructive pieces of criticism out of them.
We all know we're not yet meeting our own standards though. There's plenty
of work to on the neutrality front without wondering about how fringe
groups
like Conservapedia view our neutrality. The silent majority of readers
already appreciate what we're shooting for with NPOV.
</twocents>
Steven Walling
--
Neu: GMX De-Mail - Einfach wie E-Mail, sicher wie ein Brief!
Jetzt De-Mail-Adresse reservieren:
http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/demail