[WikiEN-l] Re: Example vs. Original research

Wed Jul 27 09:37:26 UTC 2005

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
> 
>>> It's not a matter of the number of religious fundamentalists, or how
>>> persistently anyone argues, or lines being drawn.  I certainly don't
>>> believe that today's points of view should hold sway over historical
>>> ones.
>>>   
>>
>> Then what is it a matter of? I still fail to understand
>> your position. Do you or do you not want a statement about
>> the near-spherical shape of the Earth to be qualified as
>> "just one point of view" on Wikipedia?
>>
> Ultimately all of our opinions are just one more point of view, and
> every statement is probabilistic.  The near sphericity of the earth is a
> POV with a very high probability of truth.  If all Wikipedians (and we
> are many) hold that POV than the NPOV will also be in that range as a
> consensus   Why would it be necessary to add that qualification if
> no-one is disputing the shape?
> 

I think you might run foul of both the Flat Earth Society and the
Systematic Bias folks for those statements :)

It should also be noted that the sphericity of the Earth only applies on
a macroscopic scale; the hills and valleys don't seem to spherical to me ;)

Oh, and did anyone mention the fact that the sphericity of the Earth is
distorted by the tides?

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC51XW/RxM5Ph0xhMRA+N4AJ0dQ3R9Sg/sSfNOLjiU9VE1kn3d6wCfRFIz
E9ip/hAGh5wUe/vMQ7CDZ3Y=
=azPX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----