Andreas Kolbe wrote: > The English Wikipedia community, like any other, has always contained a > wide spectrum of opinion on such matters.
Of course. But consensus != unanimity. Your interpretation of the English Wikipedia's neutrality policy contradicts that under which the site operates. > > The New York Times (recipient of more Pulitzer Prizes than any other > > news organization) uses "Stuff My Dad Says." So does the Los Angeles > > Times, which states that the subject's actual name is "unsuitable for > > a family publication." > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/books/review/InsideList-t.html > > http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/09/mydadsays-twitter.html > > > > You might dismiss those sources as the "popular press," but they're > > the most reputable ones available on the subject. Should we deem > > their censorship sacrosanct and adopt it as our own? > No. :) Please elaborate. Why shouldn't we follow the example set by the most reliable sources? David Levy _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
