-----Original Message----- From: Steve Summit [mailto:scs@eskimo.com] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 01:35 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
Fred Bauder wrote:
No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like) yields removal of the link
Is this tongue-in-cheek, or are you actually suggesting that we ought to be applying this sort of "unwritten rule" in this manner?
(At least while it contained the personal attack).
Yeah, I just noticed that, too. The edit war died down and our link was restored not because all concerned agreed that the policy-that-must-not-be-called-BADSITES was nonsense, but because Moore removed his link. If his was still there, I'm sure our argument would still be raging.
Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.
Oh, my. I really thought you were. How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?
_______________________________________________
Not at all. That's why it needs to be out in the open.
Fred
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Steve Summit [mailto:scs@eskimo.com]
Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.
Oh, my. I really thought you were. How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?
Not at all. That's why it needs to be out in the open.
Whether it's a secret "unwritten" rule or out in the open for all to see, it's still just as much a violation of NPOV.
Fred Bauder wrote:
[I had written:]
Fred Bauder wrote:
Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.
Oh, my. I really thought you were. How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?
Not at all. That's why it needs to be out in the open.
Fred, I'm sorry to sound harsh, because you're a respected editor and an arbcom member and all, but this is what happens when you cling too desperately to a fundamentally flawed policy: you have to make increasingly bizarre exceptions in a frantic attempt to stanch the gushing contradictions.
I didn't think there were exceptions to NPOV -- isn't it one of the three pillars? According to [[WP:NPOV]], Jimbo says it's "absolute and non-negotiable".