On 2/10/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
but let the rest of us massage your edits into a usable form. This is how my interpretation of IAR differs from most: I actually think that we're *supposed* to ignore NPOV much, if not most of the time.
I agree with your interpretation. I recently wrote an intro for [[Freddie Mercury]], which basically focuses on his good points. I simply didn't have anything bad to add. I was presuming at the time I added it that someone else would take the shine off, if needed.
I'd generally rather see a slightly positively-biased addition than no addition at all. And probably the same for a slightly negative addition.
Maybe we need a list of priorities for edits. Number one priority: no copyvio Number two: no vandalism
etc etc
Is this feasible?
Steve
Contributing information and making sure that information is written from a NPOV are two separate tasks. Give us information in whatever form you're best able to and let other editors make sure it conforms to NPOV. (Writing polemics doesn't help us much, and neither does writing polemics but prefacing each point with "some say". On the other hand, if you write "the Spanish-American war was primarily caused by U.S. expansionism" and are able to give a source, we don't need to beat you over the head with a stick because we can rephrase it ourselves.)
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l