Fred Bauder wrote: "The matter can be resolved by editing which conforms the article to Wikipedia policies."
This is true, however it is also true the editing which conforms the article to WP policies might fail to resolve the matter. The revival of Gore Vidal's technique of some 50 years ago, where he associated the names of several supreme court judges with sexual acts and parts of the human anatomy, in his novel /Myron/ may or may not be considered a reasonable political ploy. The same would apply to the relatively common practice of gaming page-rank for phrases such as "the worlds biggest liar" to ones political opponents. The issue here is that Wikipedia becomes party to the action, and lends credibility to one side, not solely by documenting a (possibly) notable incident, but by the manner in which it does it . There are several simple methods that could avoid or reduce this within sensible working practices of Wikipedia. Firstly WP:UNDUE applies, the depth of coverage should not exceed that appropriate for the topic. Secondly the wrod itself is not notable, so much as the incident. therefore simply renaming the article something like "Savage Google attack on Santorum" is far more apposite, and may not feed the Google attack it is documenting to the same extent. Thirdly the direct quote should not be included in many places in Wikpedia, and coverage should be mainly confined to the article in question. Some parts of the article are of very dubious significance, and the recycling of random quotes does, for example the last one in "Recognition and usage" - citing the coiner himself, does nothing to enhance the readers understanding of campaign, only of preserving their linen. RMF. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l