As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are absurd or pathetic, it
took me a bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51 ("Wikipedia's
entry on Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain
for human life.")
The coverage in his article and in [[Practical Ethics]] doesn't match the
controversy it created and doesn't pinpoint *why* it created a such a
controversy.
Yeah, I'm aware of {{sofixit}}.
[[User:Pjacobi]]
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:48:54 -0700
> Von: Steven Walling <steven.wall...@gmail.com>
> An: charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Betreff: Re: [WikiEN-l] Alleged Liberal Bias
> Even if Conservapedia are raving lunatics (and I agree with David on
> that),
> paying careful attention to our critics is a useful exercise. If you're
> really interested Fred, make a list of smart people and try to pry
> specific,
> constructive pieces of criticism out of them.
>
> We all know we're not yet meeting our own standards though. There's plenty
> of work to on the neutrality front without wondering about how fringe
> groups
> like Conservapedia view our neutrality. The silent majority of readers
> already appreciate what we're shooting for with NPOV.
>
> </twocents>
>
> Steven Walling
--
Neu: GMX De-Mail - Einfach wie E-Mail, sicher wie ein Brief!
Jetzt De-Mail-Adresse reservieren: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/demail
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
