[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

[George Herbert]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>> Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
>
> Having an article that associates someone with human waste be "reasonably
> balanced" is like claiming that an article about the Richard Gere gerbil
> rumor (as long as it stated the rumor was false) would be reasonably balanced.
> The association of a living person with shit is inherently unbalanced;
> it spreads a negative POV towards that person, no matter how many disclaimers
> we add saying that we don't think he's really like shit.

You are conflating the term (which associates someone with human
waste) and our coverage of the term (which describes the term,
descriptively, historically, and cultural and political contexts).

Our coverage of the term is NPOV and balanced, in my opinion.

You seem to wish that the term did not exist.  That's a fair wish, but
not relevant to Wikipedia.  What's relevant to Wikipedia is that it
does exist, has numerous reliable sources, has had real-world impact,
and therefore is at least arguably notable and an appropriate subject
for a WP article.

We cannot fix the fact that the term exists and was damaging to Mr.
Santorum.  Censoring Wikipedia to attempt to right wrongs done in the
real world is rather explicitly Not the Point.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com