[WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

Tue Dec 20 16:24:28 UTC 2005

On 12/20/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> But let us assume that "creation science" is not science. How can we
> verify such a thing? By our own philosophical analysis of the methods?
> Sounds like original research to me.
>
> Better, in my mind, to attribute the judgment to something more
> reputable than other Wikipedian's analysis.

Exactly.

> And if asked to be defended, we would happily point to science
> textbooks which classify cats as mammals. We don't have to rely on an
> individual Wikipedian's take on things because we don't do original
> research. If there is any doubt -- for example, on the classification
> of a platypus -- we refer to the experts and happily defer any
> responsibility for getting it wrong ("If you disagree, take it up with
> THEM, not us. We don't make such decisiions"). Which is what we should
> do here as well. But unfortunately I seem to be the only one who sees
> it this way.

You're not.

--
Sam