But we do publish them prominently. We also publish other views prominently. We present them fairly, in order that people may see them and learn. I at least trust that prejudice will be dispelled by providing the materials for knowledge. This is not blind--it is based on the historical truth that it is those who want to sustain prejudice who do he censoring.
On 7/14/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/07/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Speaking only for myself, I do not think it was a good idea to try to legislate for admins' judgment about links via BADSITES, which is why I got only briefly involved, then withdrew when I realized what was happening. What happened there is we were trolled and we fell for it.
Taking an argument to its logical conclusion is "trolling"?
It can be, yes. The logical conclusion of NPOV is that we publish prominently the views of the vast majority of the world (including the published world) on women and gays, for example, views that are largely vile. So we understand that NPOV, like every other policy and process, is to be applied with common sense. Wilfully ignoring the common sense factor leads only to trouble, wikilawyering and, yes, trolling.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l