Michael Snow wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
The problem is BLP
being used as a bludgeon to get rid of well-sourced, verifiable, NPOV
information because the neutral point of view is negative.
How can the neutral point of view be negative? That's a contradiction in
terms.
No, a neutral point of view simply presents the facts in a neutral way
without value judgements. Thus, it doesn't try and overcompensate in
either direction.
An article may contain negative information, but the
presentation
must still be neutral.
Right, as I said.
The notion that if only negative information is
available, this excuses making the "neutral" point of view negative, is
at the root of many of these problems.
No, that's a misunderstanding. Maybe it's a mistake in my clarity, but
that's a misunderstanding. See above.
It seems that very few of our
contributors have the skill and judgment needed to translate highly
unfavorable source material into neutral prose.
This is certainly true. But we also have few administrators, it
appears, who can tell the difference between unfavorable source material
and point of view issues. It works both ways.
-Jeff
--
Name: Jeff Raymond
E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com
WWW:
http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com
IM: badlydrawnjeff
Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly
because you kind of get the impression she
sang every song either about or to her cats.
They seem to be the driving force in most of
her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman