RickK wrote,
Just because someone (and apparently a majority of the people who have expressed an opinion) disagrees with your interpretation of NPOV does not mean that we don't understand it.
RickK
Rick, I do not think some people do not understand our NPOV policy because they disagree with me, I think they do not understand (or are committed to) our NPOV policy because of the way they explain their objections.
I have already shared with the list that there are some people who disagree with my proposal but whom I respect for their thoughtful explanations. And there are a few people I didn't mention. And in many cases, I told them I respected their views in a comment to their vote, in the proposal page itself. There are many "opposed" votes -- I haven't counted, but if it is less than half it is still a large number -- that I respect and cannot argue against. But there are at least as many votes, and comments on the page, that convince me that many people do not understand or are committed to our NPOV policy.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
"steven l. rubenstein" wrote
But there are at least as many votes, and comments on the page, that convince me that many people do not understand or are committed to our NPOV policy.
The bottom line is how people edit. Not how they answer any kind of 'written test' on NPOV, or anything else. There is certainly a place for policy wonkery. Apart from egregious cases, I think there is little percentage for the community in abstractly marking people down as uncomprehending.
Charles