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

[George Herbert]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>>>[...]
>>> You can't neutrally discuss how a person is compared to shit.  Not in
>>> any
>>> real-world sense.
>>
>> I don't agree for a moment that we can't neutrally discuss how a
>> person is compared to shit.  We can and in my opinion we have and do.
>>
>> This is not a more sensitive topic than numerous genocides, racism,
>> sexism, etc.
>>
>> Santorum has handled the situation more maturely than several people
>> on the list here.  He is clearly not pleased, but neither is he making
>> any attempt to suppress the incident.
>>
>>
>> --
>> -george william herbert
>> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> He has no responsibility for using the resources of a non-profit
> corporation for political purposes. We do.

We are not using the resources for political purposes.  The article is
NPOV and does not show Santorum in a negative light.

The *term* shows him in a negative light, but the *incident* actually
shows him responding maturely and responsibly.  The article presents
both aspects in a neutral and responsible manner, and in my opinion
Santorum comes off well, primarily by having been a mature adult when
faced with an offensive insult.

Again - the incident is not our fault or responsibility.  I understand
that several people find the term offensive, but there's a huge
difference between an offensive term and libel, slander, or
defamation, or Wikipedia being irresponsible.

We aren't doing anything wrong here.  We could, but the actual
coverage in the actual article is NPOV and does not show Santorum
himself in a negative manner, because we show Santorum's reasoned and
mature response for what it was.


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