[WikiEN-l] Is NPOV non-negotiable? (and if so, why are debating it?)

[Alec Conroy]

When the BADSITES movement first started, I hoped that time would show
that it was a policy which was fundamentally incompatible with NPOV.
Time did just that, and after MakingLights and MichaelMoore, I think
there's a pretty clear understanding that, in the case of notable
subjects, BADSITES and NPOV can't coexist.  This is what I had hoped
people would eventually see.

What I never even fathomed, however, was that some people, when faced
with a conflict between NPOV and BADSITES, would argue that NPOV is
the one that has to go!

------


So, for example, not to pick on Fred, but he seems to be in this camp.
 Let's assume, as we must, that he wouldn't REALLY have had us
redirect Michael Moore to Clown.  I'm still puzzled as to what his
stance is when he says :


>>>Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose
>>>viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.

>>How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?

>Not at all. That's why it needs to be out in the open.

Fred further explains,"I did not suggest it or support it. I am only
noting what we did. And that the community supports it"


It stills seems like Fred's basic understanding of the BADSITES situation is:

1.  BADSITES (and its ilk) demand deletion of all links to harassment.
2.  Michael Moore was a harasser, his link should have been deleted.
3.  But, overwhelming consensus demanded, in spite of policy, that the
link still be included.  When asked what he learned from the Michael
Moore experience, Fred said he learned,"If a powerful leftwing
celebrity attacks a rightwing Wikipedia editor on his website, his
supporters on Wikipedia should be able, as a practical matter, to
prevent removal of links to his site."  and "sometimes the bad guys
win".
4.  NPOV means that all the rules SHOULD be applied equally to everyone.
5. But since prominent subjects will have enough supporters to
overturn BADSITES in
some cases, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent
people whose viewpoint we support."  This isn't consistent with NPOV,
but be may as well make it explicit.

It just seems like any way you slice it, NPOV and BADSITES don't get
along.  What shocks me, however, is that even among people who appear
to recognize this, I don' see any loss of support for BADSITES.
Instead,  it seems like there's a grudging acceptance that NPOV is
going to have to be bent a little to accomodate the more important
goal of BADSITES.

Am I right?  I'm totally reading tea leaves here when I summarize what
I think Fred's POV is. (fred, please correct my errors).


But that's the impression I'm left with, after reading  the
discussion.   If NPOV is non-negotiable, why is its application under
negotiation?  And if a policy or principle comes down which isn't
consistent with NPOV-- which one should govern?

Alec