G'day Steve,
On 3/14/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
*I* wouldn't believe the article because of its author. There's more to accuracy than just citing sources. Pedophiles can probably write as good an article about mathematics, psychology, anatomy, politics, history or theology, but when it comes to articles about the exploitation of minors I would be as likely to give an article by a pedophile as much credit as I'd give to an article about global warming written by a road lobbyist.
I thought we were striving for balance here. Lobbyists are usually fairly good at explaining one side of a given story. As long as they don't have control of the article, their input should be welcomed. On
We *don't* strive for balance. We strive for a neutral point-of-view. The distinction is small, but vital.
the other hand, paedophiles have a particular stigma attached to them that would be pretty damaging if there was Yet Another Wikipedia Scandal.
Oh, goodness me, yes.
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse