On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 00:52:19 +0200, NSK <nsk2(a)wikinerds.org> wrote:
On Sunday 16 January 2005 00:04, Paweł 'Ausir'
Dembowski wrote:
Saying that sofware patents are bad is a POV.
Not saying that software patents are bad is a POV.
No, saying that software patents *aren't* bad is a POV; not saying
either is an *omission*; saying that there are people who believe both
is NPOV.
If there were no article stating the case against software patents,
*but there was one mentionning their advantages*, that would
constitute a POV by omission.
But if not putting something *on the main page* constitutes declaring
a POV for one side of the argument (which side?), then we're putting
out a lot of points of view right now, because I don't see every
debate in the world mentionned on Wikipedia's front page. [I wonder
which side of the abortion debate we're supporting by advertising
neither the "Right to life" nor the "Right to choose"...]
OK, so this is all a bit pedantic, but given that Wikimedia *isn't* a
political advocacy Foundation - and in many ways strives to be the
opposite - any exception to its normal neutrality would have to be
considered very carefully indeed.
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]