Andre Engels wrote:
We are to state that there is criticism, and what the
criticism
consists of. But there is no need to get into detail to prove those
criticisms or spend two paragraphs per criticism to give examples. I
don't see what the value is of spending eight paragraphs giving
examples and evidence of insufficient care in Mother Theresa's
homes. One paragraph specifying the criticism, and one with some
examples would in my opinion be enough to give the relevant
information in NPOV. Wikipedia is to state what criticism exists,
and why. It's not our task to provide the necessary information for
everybody to make decisions on the issue.
Why should we not give complete information? Wiki Is Not Paper, after
all, and we have no particular space constraints. If the article gets
too long, then we can break it down topically in some sensible
fashion.
I disagree. An article that basically is arguing both
sides of an
issues extensively is NOT how I see the ideal, NPOV article.
Well, I do not think articles should "basically argue both sides of an
issue". It should not be arguing for or against anything.
But omitting details -- why? There's plenty of room on the hard
drive.
--Jimbo