I agree with the below. And I'd also like to point out that NPOV is self-evidently *NOT* a big lie; nor even a noble lie, maybe it's a white lie or an exaggeration at the very worst. ;-)
2009/4/10 Oskar Sigvardsson <[email protected]> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Bill Carter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > These single article experiences sure seem to crop up often, huh? Anyhow, > I'm talking about many articles involving one subject: journalist Alan > Cabal. > > > It still proves absolutely nothing. Lets say this issue had "cropped > up", as you say, one thousand times. In terms of the things we talk > about on this mailing-list, that would be staggering, we wouldn't be > talking about anything else! > > But wikipedia has around 2.8 million articles. A thousand articles are > a lot, but it's only 0.03% of the total. Looking at it from that > perspective, 99.97% can achieve some sort of NPOV, which is an > absolutely incredible result. > > My point isn't that 99.97% of wikipedia articles don't have NPOV > problems (I have no idea what the number is, but I reckon it's high), > my point is that ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Saying > "article X has NPOV problems, therefore NPOV is a stupid and > unattainable policy" is an absurd argument, and if you argue that way > no one is going to take you seriously. > > --Oskar > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect world would be pretty ghastly though. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
