[WikiEN-l] Re: Articles about small religious sects, concern about accuracy and NPOV

[Dan Drake]

[Note to moderator, if any: I don't know what the dickens is going on with
my registration. If this passes your way for approval because of some 
claim that I'm not registered, please contact me. My attempt to contact 
you has failed.]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 18:00:30 UTC, Ray Saintonge 
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>  
> Taking writings out of context, and trying to direct the reader into an 
> interpretation of those texts in a manner contrary to what the original 
> author intended would be a reprehensible imposition of your own POV.

Unless the original author was in fact asserting things as fact that are 
questioned by oneself and other persons not certifiably loony, in which 
case presenting an interpretation that questions that of hte author is or 
can be a highly desirable editing out of POV. (I'm not defending things 
taken improperly out of context (Duh).) 

Perhaps we should not _assume_ that all these articles are good NPOV work?
Perhaps we should not assume that they are not?
Perhaps this is pretty elementary stuff about NPOV to be spendint the time
of this list on?


-- 
Dan Drake
dd at dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com

Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness.
 --George Orwell