[Wikipedia-l] spanish wikipedia

[Ray Saintonge]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>But "Wikipedia is not a joke book" is not the sort of policy that's
>open to consensus change.  The judgment that we don't ban people for
>working towards NPOV (thus preserving some political slant that we
>prefer) is not the sort of policy that's open to consensus change.
>
Although the "not a joke book" concept had not been heretofore been a 
part of this thread it is a good illustration thast there are core value 
issues that must take precedence even if they haven't been mentioned 
before.  They might be put into a more general category of tendencies 
that could bring the entire project into disrepute.  Becoming a joke 
book could do that; becoming a dictionary would not.

One of the problems with a lot of explicit rules is that some people 
tend to treat them too literally without any consideration or 
understanding of the background that led to the formation of that rule. 
 A related effect is the view that if there is no rule about it, it must 
be OK no matter what the consequences.

>That's *even though* I am personally pro-atheist, pro-libertarian,
>pro-reason, and pro-technology.
>
>The article that I would write, on another website, as a polemic,
>about, let's say, Ed Poor's religion, or Eclectiology's unrepentant
>leftism, would be critical and one-sided, let's suppose.  And they
>might, on another website, criticise my atheism or libertarianism.
>
The wonder is that those who are bitter opponents on one issue, can be 
staunch allies on an other.  Jimmy and I would likely clash over 
libertarianism, but be on the same side over atheism.  We may agree on 
reason, but differ on what it means.

As long as Wikipedians can continue to base their views on what people 
say rather than who they are we have a healthy project.

Eclecticology