Andrew Gray wrote: > On 27 June 2010 06:47, Elias Friedman <elipo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You're proposing to overturn the rules against POV forking? Seems like >> a bad idea to me - the encyclopedia would shatter into an unnavigable >> mess if every interest group were to split off their own versions of >> articles. >> > > I think there's a valid issue here, but there's a balance to be struck > between: > > * X as it occurs in one specific context > * X from the perspective of one viewpoint > > So it would be legitimate to have an article on [[Economic > philosophies of the Something Party]] and one on [[Economic > philosophies of the Other Party]]; it would not be legitimate to have > an article on [[Economics (Somethingian)]] as a counter to [[Economics > (Otherian)]]. > > Where you draw the line, though, is quite tricky... > > It's not so tricky to say that (a) NPOV is never negotiable in an article, and (b) a POV content fork is not a distinction between topics, but a way of spreading out content according to editorial view. We have never accepted that POV content forks have a place in WP. (They have a very large place elsewhere, which is a good reason to stick to our guns on this.)
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
