24 wrote:
"The wikipedia article database seems safe from any concerns, but on
March 1, 2002, the wikipedia lost its chief editor?, [Larry Sanger]?,
and has no clear or obvious way to make certain policy decisions
critical to its future."
I am now fulfilling the role formerly held by Larry. When it comes
down to the wire, I'll be the one making final policy decisions.
Fortunately, though, essentially all policy decisions of major import
have already been made and will not be changing.
NPOV is non-negotiable. And also, perhaps to the chagrin of longtime
contributors, the policy of not banning people unless they are
absolute vandals, is non-negotiable unless we get such a massive
influx of anti-NPOV authors that the project is starting to degenerate
into something other than what it is intended to be.
I don't think 24 or anyone else should get the idea that since Larry
is gone, we can turn Wikipedia into a humor site, or a Libertarian
rant, or a Green advocacy site, or a "Natural point of view" site.
(I am trying to re-read "Natural Point of View", so that I can
understand 24's perspective, but it is mostly incoherent. I was
unsure who wrote what, and so went into this history. Apparently,
even the parts written solely by 24 are incoherent.)
--Jimbo
p.s. I think 24 vastly overestimates the power of indymedia, and also
overestimates the "threat" of bringing them in. 24 may think they are
all a bunch of anti-NPOV biased policial operatives -- I think they
are just regular people with political leanings far different from my
own, but who can fully buy into our NPOV goals. I think I'll submit
an article to them myself.