> > As a fictional example, let's suppose some members of Congress propose > legislation to build a new Brooklyn Bridge. Under the subject: HR 999 > Proposal to build a new Brooklyn Bridge, there would be one pro and one con > argument edited only by members of Congress and one pro and one con > argument edited by the general public.
Why would political knowledge need to presented with a POV? That merely encourages confirmation bias. Dividing viewpoints into two different strands doesn't sound much like informing, it sounds rather a lot like providing a platform for soapboxing :) Tom _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
