[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikien-l
Subject:    Re: [WikiEN-l] Libel chill
From:       Ray Saintonge <saintonge () telus ! net>
Date:       2006-04-22 8:49:46
Message-ID: 4449EE2A.8040007 () telus ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
>  
>
>>So I'd say it's not a question of sometimes needing to relax NPOV
>>because of a libel problem, but the opposite -- we need to enforce
>>NPOV and the other two policies rigorously, understand how they
>>complement each other, and realize that, jointly, they're our very
>>best protection.
>>    
>>
>I am following up on yet another post in this thread with yet another
>"me too" primarily to express that what I am seeing is nearly universal
>and unanimous support for what I am also saying:  there is *zero*
>tension between NPOV and not being sued.
>
There is no problem with this.  Nevertheless how it's expressed can make 
a big difference.

>Slim Virgin is pointing out as well that there is zero tension between
>any of our core editorial policies and not being sued.  NPOV, NOR, V.
>
I think there is a pecking order between these with NPOV being at the 
top.  Verifiability can be relaxed with some subjects where it is still 
desirable but people will not be misled by its absence.  I would 
probably be more tolerant of Original Research than you, but that 
depends on which project is being considered.

I do find that some people try to define these principles too tightly.  
NPOV works because it confounds rigidity.  Attempts to define these 
things in great detail will just create a breeding ground for bugs.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]