Victor Vasiliev wrote: > Sage Ross wrote: > >> I think this is an excellent, long overdue idea and something >> Wikimedia should be interested in. I was actually thinking of >> proposing something like this at strategy.wikimedia.org (and may still >> do so). >> >> > > I don't think that creating such a project within Wikimedia would be a > great idea. NPOV is one of the most important Wikimedia principles. >
No it is *not*. I will continue to combat this pernicious canard as long as there is breath in my body. NPOV is a band-aid that enables the writing of a collaboratively edited encyclopaedia about subjects which while they may be fixed as to their true nature, are inherently subjectively understood by various people. NPOV is *not* a transcendent principle. It shouldn't be raised to the level of something immutable and sacred. It is just a tool. Wikinews does not adhere to the strict NPOV interpretation that is inevitable for Wikipedia. Wikiversity could not even come close to employing anything remotely like it. Wikispecies actually doesn't have any need for anything like it. And for Wikisource, just as for Wikinews, NPOV can only be considered to apply in a thoroughly transmogrified form. Thank you. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
