On Apr 15, 2007, at 7:51 AM, Francis Tyers wrote:
Imagine a Wikipedia where the admins are either uncaring, trolls or hopelessly biased. Thats what you're dealing with, and thats why articles such as
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunismul_%C3%AEn_lume_%C5%9Fi_evreii "World Communism and the Jews"
still exist after months.
Wow. Rarely does Godwin have such a blatant real-life exception... The online "sources" for that article are mostly in english, BTW, and you can gather some perspective about their publishers at their sites: 1. http://www.stormfront.org/ 2. http://wake-up-america.net/ 3. http://usa-the-republic.com/ 4. http://www.jewwatch.com/ 5. http://www.marxists.org/ 6. http://www.asymetria.org/
The article doesn't seem to exactly have an unbiased set of sources, or even a wide range of biased sources, representing differing perspectives on the article's topic, which could be detrimental to the pillar of NPOV.
Pillars are all wikipedia, not just language spaces, right? http:// meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
In the EN space, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources would certainly be a criteria that be applied to this article.
Is there a similar policy or guideline spelled out in the RO space?
-Bop