John Lee (johnleemk(a)gawab.com) [050224 23:02]:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:
>(NPOV for Wikipedia is not just a
"benefit", but rather a "boundary".
>We don't ask, "Is this violation of NPOV worth what it gets us?"
>Rather, we take it as read that any violation of NPOV is a bad thing,
>and we try to avoid such violations wherever possible rather than making
>excuses for them. We don't always _succeed_, but we don't give up.)
Since filtering images does not violate NPOV, I
don't see what this has
to do with it.
You state this flatly, but it appears this is considered a highly
contentious point in itself. It also appears that policies are being
constructed to this aim as an apparent end-run around NPOV, using pieces
that don't in themselves necessarily violate NPOV.
A filter applied by default filters by a point of view, however
non-violating the pieces going into that filter might be.
- d.