Daniel Lee Mayer wrote:
> Moreover, one of 24's aims is to change the
goals of the
> project and tell us what we 'should' (in his twisted world-view) be
> writing about.
My position on this is that so long as someone keeps their "change the
goals" campaign on meta, that's fine. It's a waste of typing, though,
because the one thing I'm totally dogmatic and inflexible on is NPOV
and the concept of "encyclopedia". If NPOV is wrong, then so be it,
wikipedia will be wrong. I'll gladly give an alternative community
free hosting (until I can't afford it) just to defuse the objection
that we're somehow suppressing alternatives.
If someone wants a non-NPOV encyclopedia, or if someone wants a site
that is something _other than_ an encyclopedia, that's fine. But it
won't be wikipedia.
The thing is, I'm an extremely ideological person. I'm a hardcore
"libertarian" politically. I'm an _Atlas Shrugged_-toting-Objectivist
philosophically. Compared to the average person, I'm "off the scale"
in terms of ideological extremism. Don't ask me about religion or
communism or the 'greens' unless you want to get an earful about
reason, morality, and individual freedom. :-)
So I think I _understand_ the desire to write one-sided articles.
Sometimes I'd love to go into articles on topics that I care about and
write a diatribe. :-) But I don't. Because to do so would be
_polemics_, not _encyclopedics_. If even *I*, an "ideological kook"
if there ever was one, can keep the two straight, then so can people
who are just as extreme in some other direction.
It would be wrong to turn Wikipedia into a platform for my opinions --
or 24s. It's an encyclopedia. It is a catalog of information aiming
for an approximation to universal agreement. We have many simple
techniques for achieving this, the most common and easiest being to
"step out a level" and not _engage_ the controversy, but _describe_
> In my opinion, he IS vandalizing the project by
> tons of pages that are really indefensible from a NPOV-encyclopedia
> standpoint. Banning him would certainly result in tirades of "those
> people/that clique doesn't like what I say, so they're oppressing me",
> but this may be the point where we have to make a call on policy.
I'd like to hear Cunctator weigh in on this topic. He's probably our
current best "conscience" on such matters, in the sense that he's very
opposed to cabalism, and clearly sees the risk.
To me, the risk is two fold. First, there's the possibility of the
public tirades against our allegedly exclusionary policies, etc. But
second, there's the danger that we go down a slipperly slope and start
banning people for more and more minor infractions.
I really hate to say it, but I think it is time to at
least consider voting
24 off the island. Maybe give him/her one more chance to reform.
I'm trying to see if I can raise him via private email. Perhaps I can talk sense