[WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV

[Ray Saintonge]

WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/6/2009 5:40:09 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
> cbeckhorn at fastmail.fm writes:
>
> If by  "community" you mean "WP policy" then no such decision has been 
> made. It  is perfectly acceptable to write certain articles entirely from 
> primary  sources. Indeed, many biographical articles are written entirely 
> from  primary sources. But I agree that most articles that can be based 
> mostly  off of secondary sources should be based off of secondary  
> sources.>>
> -----------------------
> No, by community I mean that our policy was and is the creation of our  
> policy editors.  
I agree that this is a huge problem.  It puts the policy writers in 
conflict with those who like to make contributions.
> And then the policy instructs the editors, who then modify  it 
> again, and it then instructs again, in a feedback loop.   We as a  community, set 
> our own policy, after the core nebulous concepts were  outlined.  I dispute 
> that it is acceptable to write using solely primary  sources, or that our 
> policy states that.
>   

Most of us do not participate in policy editing because we find the 
whole process to be one big mind-fuck.  That said, it is grossly 
arrogant to perpetrate the myth that the policy writers reflect the 
community.  The real contributors function best in the topics that 
interest them, and if they're lucky they'll avoid the wrath of some 
autocratic know-nothing that wants to impose the literal interpretation 
of obscure policy.

If you do not find primary sources acceptable that's fine; don't use 
them in your own writing.  That does not justify your dictating such a 
semantic distinction on others.


Ec