On 7/15/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
> > On 7/14/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/14/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 14/07/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/14/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Speaking only for myself, I do not think it was a good idea to
> > > > > legislate for admins' judgment about links via BADSITES,
which is why
> > > > > I got only briefly involved, then withdrew when I realized what
> > > > > happening. What happened there is we were trolled and we fell
> > > >
> > > > Taking an argument to its logical conclusion is
> > > >
> > > It can be, yes. The logical conclusion of NPOV is that we publish
> > > prominently the views of the vast majority of the world (including the
> > > published world) on women and gays, for example, views that are
> > > largely vile. So we understand that NPOV, like every other policy and
> > > process, is to be applied with common sense. Wilfully ignoring the
> > > common sense factor leads only to trouble, wikilawyering and, yes,
> > > trolling.
> > >
> > But we do publish them prominently.
> No, we don't. If we were fairly to represent the majority of the
> world's published sources on [[Gay]], we'd have to include in the lead
> that people think homosexuality is a sin, and at [[Woman]], that most
> people around the world think women are inferior to men.
> We pay lip service to NPOV, and to BIAS, while quietly applying both
> with common sense, which is how all the policies and processed need to
> be applied.
David, please don't top-post. :-)
We publish them fairly, which does not mean
proportional to the
numbers who believe in them. It means fully enough to explain them
objectively in their own terms, and this goes for literally
everything--and I would say without any exception.
You are confusing voting for legislation with making an encyclopedia.
The number of people who hold a view is irrelevant.
Well, we're meant to represent views in rough proportion to how
they're held by reliable, published sources. We're also meant to take
a global perspective. If we were to do both of those things, we would
have to add thoroughly objectionable material to lots of articles,
including the examples I gave above. So we don't do it.
Look at [[Gay]] and [[Woman]], and you'll see that we don't.