CZ Talk:Neutrality Policy/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
imported>Yi Zhe Wu (ehh) |
imported>Ion Alexandru Morega (section "An Example" contains false information) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Wikipedia has a similar policy on pseudoscience, but with stronger language than us. Now their neutrality policy is often embattled in so-called "arbitration" cases, should we do something to prevent that? However, in another hand, our policy with the current wording, I personally think it's less likely to have those cases like Wikipedia does. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (CDT) | Wikipedia has a similar policy on pseudoscience, but with stronger language than us. Now their neutrality policy is often embattled in so-called "arbitration" cases, should we do something to prevent that? However, in another hand, our policy with the current wording, I personally think it's less likely to have those cases like Wikipedia does. [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
== section "An Example" contains false information == | |||
This fragment was taken from Wikipedia, and (I assume automatically) "Wikipedians" was replaced by "Citizens". | |||
"It might help to consider an example of a biased text and how Citizens have rendered it at least relatively unbiased. On the abortion page, early in 2001 [...]" | |||
I think that in this case it should say "Wikipedians", perhaps with some clarification, like a link to the [[Wikipedia]] page. | |||
Revision as of 04:11, 9 May 2007
Unibased writing and thinking is quite hard in a competitive, business driven culture. We are taught to present our beliefs in as convincing a manner as we can. So I apreciate these helpful hints:
- unbiased writing means presenting controversial views without asserting them.
--Janos Abel
Wikipedia has a similar policy on pseudoscience, but with stronger language than us. Now their neutrality policy is often embattled in so-called "arbitration" cases, should we do something to prevent that? However, in another hand, our policy with the current wording, I personally think it's less likely to have those cases like Wikipedia does. Yi Zhe Wu 18:20, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
section "An Example" contains false information
This fragment was taken from Wikipedia, and (I assume automatically) "Wikipedians" was replaced by "Citizens".
"It might help to consider an example of a biased text and how Citizens have rendered it at least relatively unbiased. On the abortion page, early in 2001 [...]"
I think that in this case it should say "Wikipedians", perhaps with some clarification, like a link to the Wikipedia page.