On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, [ISO-8859-1] �var Arnfj�r� Bjarmason wrote:
Any unbashed viewpoint hurts our credibility.
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:12:04 -0700, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote:
> Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
>
> >Today's featured article is a delightful read, but strikes me as
> >terribly one-sided. The adjectives applied to Yeltsin in this
> >conflict are consistently negative, and the advjectives applied to his
> >opponents are consistently positive. The reality is much more
> >complex.
> >
> >It is unusual for a featured article to be so problematic.
> >
> And the bulk of the content is from - you guessed it - 172! This
> is the hallmark of his style; while there are usually no gross
> misrepresentations of fact, the wording is so relentlessly slanted
> it would take a week to clean up, at the end of which he would just
> revert it all in one fell swoop. It's completely exasperating; I
> finally stopped looking at anything he touches, scrubbed it all
> out of my watchlist, and regained Wikipedia-nirvana.
>
> Even so, I still worry that the unabashed socialist viewpoint will
> hurt WP's credibility as an impartial recorder.
>
What is odd about this article in my eyes is that it appears not to have
passed thru the normal process of being nominated, debated, then approved
as a "Featured Article". I admit I made a rather quick search on the history
pages of both the [[Wikipedia: Candidates for Featured Articles]] & the
page in question, but one would think it would be that hard to find some
trace of a discussion & approval.
Can someone supply a link to the nomination for this page, or otherwise
explain how it gained featured status?
Geoff