Geoffrey Burling wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, [ISO-8859-1] ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
Any unbashed viewpoint hurts our credibility.
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:12:04 -0700, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Today's featured article is a delightful read, but strikes me as terribly one-sided. The adjectives applied to Yeltsin in this conflict are consistently negative, and the advjectives applied to his opponents are consistently positive. The reality is much more complex.
It is unusual for a featured article to be so problematic.
And the bulk of the content is from - you guessed it - 172! This is the hallmark of his style; while there are usually no gross misrepresentations of fact, the wording is so relentlessly slanted it would take a week to clean up, at the end of which he would just revert it all in one fell swoop. It's completely exasperating; I finally stopped looking at anything he touches, scrubbed it all out of my watchlist, and regained Wikipedia-nirvana.
Even so, I still worry that the unabashed socialist viewpoint will hurt WP's credibility as an impartial recorder.
What is odd about this article in my eyes is that it appears not to have passed thru the normal process of being nominated, debated, then approved as a "Featured Article". I admit I made a rather quick search on the history pages of both the [[Wikipedia: Candidates for Featured Articles]] & the page in question, but one would think it would be that hard to find some trace of a discussion & approval.
Can someone supply a link to the nomination for this page, or otherwise explain how it gained featured status?
Geoff
Ahah ! a cabal to destabilize Wikipedia ? :-)