Slim Virgin wrote:
On 7/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
No, we don't. If we were fairly to represent the majority of the world's published sources on [[Gay]], we'd have to include in the lead that people think homosexuality is a sin, and at [[Woman]], that most people around the world think women are inferior to men.
We pay lip service to NPOV, and to BIAS, while quietly applying both with common sense, which is how all the policies and processed need to be applied.
We publish them fairly, which does not mean proportional to the numbers who believe in them. It means fully enough to explain them objectively in their own terms, and this goes for literally everything--and I would say without any exception. You are confusing voting for legislation with making an encyclopedia. The number of people who hold a view is irrelevant.
Well, we're meant to represent views in rough proportion to how they're held by reliable, published sources. We're also meant to take a global perspective. If we were to do both of those things, we would have to add thoroughly objectionable material to lots of articles, including the examples I gave above. So we don't do it.
Look at [[Gay]] and [[Woman]], and you'll see that we don't.
Sorry if I'm getting mixed up about who said what. Fairly and neutrally representing minority views is not a question of equal proportion of words, or of number of words in the ratio of an idea's popularity. If some people think that homosexuality is a sin, that can be said in one sentence. Maybe one paragraph will be enough for them to explain their theory, and provide sources to show that the theory came from somewhere. If a theory fails because there is a logical flaw in the premises to that theory, it is an utter waste of time to show how every detail that follows from that premise is also wrong.
Ec