fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
The problem is
the cases in the middle. What overrides NPOV?
I still don't understand what NPOV has to do with this. A link to edit a Wikipedia
user's page is as shameful for MIchael Moore as any excess of ours. In a way, linking
to it puts him in a false light, displaying petty bullying.
The NPOV violation here is that in the POV of some of us, harassing,
maligning, or exposing Wikipedia editors is a bad thing. More
specifically, it is seen as the one bad thing in all the world that
might merit link removal. Other people do not share this POV.
Perhaps one could make an NPOV-friendly case for removing all links to
all harassment, or maligning, or exposing of anonymous or pseudonymous
people. It would be even more clearly consistent with NPOV to argue for
a removal of all links to all living miscreants everywhere.
Needless to say, I don't think those are a good idea either. I think our
job is to give people the facts as best we can, while leaving the moral
judgments to our readers.
William
--
William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri