[WikiEN-l] (no subject)

Wed Oct 29 20:50:52 UTC 2003

From: "Eileen" <EileenE at gmx.net>

> Fred Bauder suggested I just jump in and edit liberally but this, I have
> absolutely no doubt, would simply lead to a pissing contest between those
who
> want the propaganda retained and those interested in factual information.
I
> have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in such an exchange.

I agree that partial birth abortion is a loaded term.
Why are you just rejecting Wikipedia because you
are not interested in discussing how to do this so
that all points of view are presented? It seems to
me that your off handed rejection of Wikipedia only
shows that you are not serious in trying to get
neutral information out to as many people as possible.

It seems that you want to present a point of view
that is valid and part of the debate about PBA. OK. Using
variations of terms is very common in encyclopedias.
Sometimes someone looking up an entry only has one
term, if they start reading one article the beauty of
Wikipedia is that it will lead them to related articles
or different terminologies.

> It is for these reasons that I will retain the answers I have recived to
> this query as background and support of my position and will simply refuse
in
> the future to accept any citition from Wikipedia as a reference to a
legitimate
> authority but will put it in the same class as a letter to the editor in a
> small local newspaper.

No one is preventing you from putting such
information on Wikipedia. If you do state that
is what happened to you, you may in fact be
libeling the good name of Wikipedia. Why would
you want to do that I do not know. Perhaps your
motives are not so neutral as you suggest and
you have your own hidden agenda?

Alex756