On 21/09/2007, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
The reason NPOV is the most basic of principles is that without it, no source of information can be trusted, or is worth even producing. Fred, your well-intentioned policies will have the unintended end of destroying our credibility.
I agree entirely. Let us not forget which road is paved with good intentions.
Exactly how is NPOV at odds with Fred's position?
If I may quote [[WP:5]]: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"."
Allowing some points of view to be censored clearly violates this.
Yes, but what this line of argument consistently fails to establish is how the refusal to link to a site constitutes such a violation. WP:NOT#Not censored and WP:NPOV are weighty issues, and I expect the people who advance this argument to explain that linkage in a cogent manner.
The only issue I can see is that this would carve an exception to the guideline WP:CITE. And if we can proscribe reasonable limits to that exception that may be a healthy solution.
-Durova