|
This whole process can be carried out to absurdity. An article on cross burning? Oh yeah, here's how the wikipedia approach would work: "Well, proponents say that it is a legitimate form of self expression to protect the white race, while opponents consider it intimidation." Slavery? "Proponents argue that certain classes of human beings are inferior, while others believe that all human beings have the right to dignity". Blah blah blah. This is NPOV, this is just nonsense. |
|
This whole process can be carried out to absurdity. An article on cross burning? Oh yeah, here's how the wikipedia approach would work: "Well, proponents say that it is a legitimate form of self expression to protect the white race, while opponents consider it intimidation." Slavery? "Proponents argue that certain classes of human beings are inferior, while others believe that all human beings have the right to dignity". Blah blah blah. This is NPOV, this is just nonsense. --Egern Things that can be done about it: * This issue can be ignored, as more than 95% of articles don't have such problems. This is probably prefered solution now. * In such projects, people follow existing examples, this can be exploited in some way. Still quite realistic. * Structure of project changes the way participants behave, this can be exploited in some way. Least realistic, but could give best results. Of course no specifics from me - I've never made scientific research about NPOV issue on Wikipedia. --Taw |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)