Let's suppose, James Farrar, that the "point of view" that is being linked to was an accusation that you, James Farrar, were an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, a registered sex offender, a Nazi (Plug in what ever would cause the most trouble in your personal situation). Now, how does that link look to you?
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 02:58 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
On 21/09/2007, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
The reason NPOV is the most basic of principles is that without it, no source of information can be trusted, or is worth even producing. Fred, your well-intentioned policies will have the unintended end of destroying our credibility.
I agree entirely. Let us not forget which road is paved with good intentions.
Exactly how is NPOV at odds with Fred's position?
If I may quote [[WP:5]]: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"."
Allowing some points of view to be censored clearly violates this.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l