I have a philosophical question, "Why has *neutral* become good?"
It seems to be a prevailing opinion related to political correctness. Criticizing things that have been traditionally 'good' is now portrayed as 'progressive' and 'liberal thinking' (traditional sense of the word) -- in other words 'good' and 'acceptable'. Conversely, holding fast to the traditional values, positions, and ideas is viewed as 'backwards', 'stubborn', and as you point out 'over-zealous' -- in other words 'bad'. While it is true that you can't fight everything all the time, this seems like a strange philosophy. To me it seems a little 'lukewarm' (Rev 3:16)... Just a politically incorrect thought.... Steve -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Pringle Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 3:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Ldsoss] Re: Ldsoss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 1 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree. In fact, I just edited a change to the First Vision article to make it more NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The only way for Wikipedia to become anti-Mormon is for LDS to avoid the site. It is important to realize that neutral means that all points of view are respected. Therefore, you will read things like "Joseph Smith claimed to have a vision ..." A faithful LDS person would rather read "Joseph Smith had a vision". However, that would not be permitted. It works the other way as well: "Cirtics claim ..." when anti-Mormons would probably want things like that stated as facts. It is important to respect this neutrality. At one point, somebody made a bunch of biased edits to some article. It was found that the IP Address was in the church offices, and so that raised quite a stink. The conclusion was that it was just an over-zealous employee rather than an organized effort to bias the articles, but if too many such incidents were to happen, it would have caused a real problem. I hesitate to mention this (for fear things will get knocked out of balance), but I have been working on the article "Mormonism and Christianity", which attempts to compare the two viewpoints. In addition to a number of LDS editors, we have a protestant who is asking some really good questions in trying to understand what we believe and why. If you get the right mix of people, then articles can come together very nicely. If, however, you get too many zealots (from either side) working on the article, it can get quite tedious, but even the most obnoxious are helpful in that they can detect bias in places that we wouldn't notice. IMHO if an article is well-balanced and truly NPOV, then neither side is happy with it. ;^) --- Bill Pringle work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.unisysfsp.com http://www.unisys.com home/school: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.personal.psu.edu/~wrp103 http://CherylWheeler.com _______________________________________________ Ldsoss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss _______________________________________________ Ldsoss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
