On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
So we can promote things only if they are not divisive and inflammatory in American English Christian culture?
No, this is an encyclopedia. We do not promote ANYTHING.
However, if we're going to have to debate this issue thousands of times (roughly once per five userboxes removed, I suspect) then at least we can weed out the obviously absurd reviews. Such as those that should be rejected on other grounds, even if people are prepared to pack polls and vote against "What Wikipedia is NOT".
If we dont promote anything, then why are you putting down your bias towards what you feel is inflammatory and divisive, while ignoring others pleas that such things are not in any way included in that criteria.
What wikipedia "is" is more important than what it is not. It is a neutral point of view area. By putting down your obvious point of view against satanism, and just making the christian box go to be consistent, you are showing that you are not infact driven by "what wikipedia is" (ie. a place where you are neutral and therefore accepting of others biases in good faith that they will not take them to articles).
BTW, "packing the polls" may just be a reflection of how many people are actually trying to show how much support (and hence not divisiveness) the "keep" side has.
Peter Ansell