libertarian wrote:
I too was under the impression that the aim of
Wikipedia was to
present things in an encyclopediac fashion.
It is!
However, when Wikipedia allows allegations ragrding
verifiable events
(especially the allegations of political oppnents) to be posted as
a legitimate point of view, the credibility of Wikipedia takes a
beating.
What do you mean about 'allows'? If you see a problem, edit it.
In particular, I've been having problems regarding
contributions I've
made on India. I've tried to stick to verifiable facts and present
things in an encyclopedic manner, but there seem to be 3 members
who keep watch on what I'm posting and revert it to their version
which carries nothing but what can be classified as propaganda of
the Communist Party of India(Marxist). These people add allegations
by this party as a part of an article.
Can you give an exact reference, including references to diffs of
reversions?
In any case, I accepted the claim that if an issue has
N
views, all N views are represented on Wikipedia.
However, when I posted a point of view they didn't like, it was
removed by them!
I have not looked at your edits, but one key that you should keep in
mind of course is that in case of controversy, Wikipedia should not
assert multiple points of view, but merely describe those points of
view.
It sounds like you do understand that, so perhaps if you can give us
some specific references to review, that would be helpful.
--Jimbo