On Dec 28, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Phil Sandifer > <snowspin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >> So basically, we have a phrase that mandates the violation of NPOV on >> a host of articles, that was inserted without discussion, and that >> has >> been controversial in every subsequent discussion. But we keep it, >> because it's "consensus." > > Have you tried suggesting this change on the talk page and advertising > the discussion at various relevant noticeboards and other project talk > pages?
I'm sorry, I should give a more complete answer here. Yes, and among the stellar responses created by the people who currently populate our policy talk pages and thus, by default, control our policy formation is that the correct solution is to not cover the criticism of the person in depth either, thus removing the balance problem. Yes. Apparently the road to a NPOV encyclopedia is now to avoid posting any information whatsoever. This is what happens when the old-timers leave the policy pages, by the way. The worst of the Taylorized take over. Which is why I keep bringing these things up on the list - in the hopes that the comparative sanity of the list will wander back to the policy pages and start fixing these messes. -Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
