On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:06:15AM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
Hi - ok, let me give an example. Let's suppose that the religious right were able to muster a relatively small number of people to edit here on the evolution pages. Are you saying that, if there are a large number of people editing on the 'side' of that, then it should go in? If not, can you clarify what you did mean? Thanks, Mark
Well, there are a few scenarios here:
If what they're putting in is something they can demonstrate is believed by a large number of people (ie the wider community, and not just the few editing), and they write it in such as way that it doesn't violate the NPOV policy, then yes.
If they fail to write to the NPOV policy, then what they're saying should still go in, but it will need to be reworked.
If they're pushing a very minority point of view that's not widely held in the greater community, then it's probably one of the few cases where the fact that there are a large number of people on one side isn't indicative of the validity of their additions.
Of course, in reality, I can't imagine a high traffic page like evolution only having one person opposing.
My point isn't that the number of editors believing a point of view makes it valid to go in the article. My point was that if we have a large number of editors thinking something should go in the article, and only one person against it, then more often than not the majority is going to be right. It's just simple probability, if you think about it.
Shane.