[WikiEN-l] My views on policies and debates over content

[Poor, Edmund W]

> The other point was that WP is (or wants to be) an 
> encyclopaedia, and that some POVs have to be excluded. The 
> way we do that is by assessing how much (academic) support 
> they have, in terms of the context and subject matter. 
> There's no need for content committees, as long as consensus 
> decisions on WP:NPOV can be acheieved (mediation) and 
> enforced (arbitration).
> 
> -- 
> Stephen Bain

If the decision on excluded POVs is made on the basis of how much
support they have, we will quickly turn toward a regime of censorhip of
unpopular views.

* We won't even be able to MENTION that a minority of 
  scientists contacted by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) 
  disagree with the "consensus" that anthropogenic emissions 
  are causing excessive atmospheric warming.

* If a religion is branded a "cult" (and enough people share 
  this view), then the "excluded POVs policy" would forbid 
  ANY mention of reasons why some people think the religion 
  is bona fide.

In short, Wikipedia would become the "liberal encyclopedia", replacing
the NPOV *policy* with the liberal *POV*. I don't think Jimbo would like
that.

Jimbo, please comment.

Ed Poor