[WikiEN-l] Gaping void in Wikipedia

[Ben McIlwain]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Phil Sandifer wrote:

> That's the part where you got it wrong. In reality, deleting NPOV,  
> verifiable content on notable subjects because its creator didn't  
> touch third base is destructive to Wikipedia, and anyone involved in  
> it should be arbcommed. And if I'm ever made directly aware of it,  
> they will be arbcommed.

Don't hold ArbCom as a threat over the heads of other editors; it
doesn't work and it's not a good tactic.

And as for NPOV articles ... if someone is being paid to write articles
on these businesses, it isn't going to be NPOV, but it's going to be POV
in a way that you could only establish it as such if you were intimately
familiar with the subject matter, or were prepared to do lots of
research.  That's why we have the general prohibition against publicity
articles; they tend not to be NPOV, and even when they do appear to be,
they likely aren't.

For instance, I could write one hell of a POV article about hypernovae
that would totally discount one of the two major theories in the field
as to how they occur, and yet simply by reading the article you would
never know it, and it would only be after doing some in-depth study on
the subject that you would realize that what I wrote was utterly not NPOV.

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

~ Ubi olim vita, nunc vita ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFFEIALvCEYTv+mBWcRAhleAJsG3sekRDPg/kxxF+i31fO0B2zlXACfbHkA
Qsm6UBcWNuuYBp5lbdeVZbE=
=ZMDo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----