Cheney Shill wrote:
charles matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Raphael Wegmann" wrote
I'd say, that at least WP:NPA would need to
be rewritten to
reflect what you say. WP:NPA starts with
"Do not make personal attacks *anywhere* in Wikipedia."
Yes, we don't want ad hominem discussion, Wikipedian on Wikipedian. But
that is really not what is under debate here.
Agree again. "Working with others" is the context of NPA.
It appears very clearly on that and all policy pages,
along with the policies/guidelines considered "Article standards".
Consider this example:
There are politicians in jail convicted of taking bribes.
Admitted, uncontested, and no retrial requested.
If their family and political party join Wiki and complain
that it is a personal attack, should we remove it or call it
"accepting donations for future personal and political goals"?
Should we call them "controversial allegations"?
Why should any politician, who admitted taking bribes,
complain for that allegation?
Raphael, I don't doubt you that Islam receives a
far more
negative spin on Wiki than Christianity. I'll try to reply
to some of the detailed aspects later, but my my view
regarding article and user interaction policy isn't going
to change. If you want a different "bias" than the current
sources, you need to present better (or more equivalent)
sources that have a different "bias". Even then, there's
no guarantee it will change, especially if you're correct
about the systemic bias. Those types of biases arise from
the people in the majority positions. I.e., those with
consensus. There's nothing written in the article standard
policies that favor one religion over another.~~~~Pro-Lick
There's nothing written in policies, that WP is a democracy,
Ochlocracy or Mobocracy either.
--
Raphael