Oh yes, I'm sure faux-intellectual white supremacists and Christian fundamentalists absolutely need to be heard through their own "encyclopedia". It's not like they would disavow the rights of others to speak freely.
Oh wait, yeah they would.
While obviously freedom of speech is meaningless unless you defend the rights of every nut job and hate monger to have his say, I certainly don't have to condone what they are saying or support their project. Just because I wouldn't forbid them from saying what they please doesn't mean I have to advocate that they do so. The less heard from these crackpots the better.
On 7/25/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/26/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Compared to Conservapedia, I don't see them having any specific page attacking wikipedia in any shape or form...
Wikipedians don't simply dislike Conservapedia because it is critical of
our
endeavors, we dislike it because it is poorly written and fundamentally opposed to the spirit of inclusiveness and neutrality that Wikipedia
stands
for. The same goes for Metapedia. It's a lobby for a particular
viewpoint on
subjects, not a fair and comprehensive encyclopedic endeavor.
First of all, you appear to feel you have the right to represent what wikipedians as a group dislike. That feeling is without justification.
It would furthermore be quite legitimate to say that Encycopaedia Britannica falls well short of the requirements of neutrality that Wikipedia sets for itself. And yet that does not allow us to point a finger at Encyclopaedia Britannica and say that their compendium is a ridiculous endeavour.
The world really has space enough for more than one viewpoint. And it certainly has room for more than the "neutral viewpoint".
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l