[WikiEN-l] ArbCom Legislation

[Delirium]

Todd Allen wrote:
> I noticed an interesting juxtaposition above. Star Wars Kid, and the
> glaring lack of the real name, was brought up. Charles stated above
> that NPOV is not negotiable. I would hope, then, that he is entirely
> for including the name in this article. The absolute overwhelming
> majority of reliable sources reporting on the Star Wars Kid incident
> used his real name. By failing to follow that lead, we are pushing a
> POV, that POV being "They were wrong to publish that." Pushing a POV
> by silence or removal is no more acceptable than pushing it by what we
> do write. Given the number of sources which have so chosen to report,
> that is clearly a minority, fringe POV, and has no place dominating an
> article.
>   
This is a somewhat anomalous situation, because it's really a single 
fact that seems to be neither negative nor positive being omitted, and 
the interpretation that it's non-neutral because others include this 
fact is a bit of a stretch.

There are much more direct and worrying examples, mainly the omission of 
widely-reported, well-sourced negative information which tends to make 
the resulting articles non-neutral in that they're more positive than 
the consensus view we're supposed to be summarizing.

-Mark