Archive:Policy questions raised by articles: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=This page is now archived= | |||
This page was never used, so has been archived. | |||
''I'd like to start a list of relatively well-defined, narrow policy questions that need to be answered. I propose to ask the question and then put down an article that raises the questions. We can also list off some points in favor or against a specific policy. My idea is that these questions might be taken up by an editorial policy workgroup, with their answers worked into CZ policy pages. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:54, 22 January 2007 (CST)'' | ''I'd like to start a list of relatively well-defined, narrow policy questions that need to be answered. I propose to ask the question and then put down an article that raises the questions. We can also list off some points in favor or against a specific policy. My idea is that these questions might be taken up by an editorial policy workgroup, with their answers worked into CZ policy pages. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:54, 22 January 2007 (CST)'' | ||
Revision as of 09:40, 10 April 2007
This page is now archived
This page was never used, so has been archived.
I'd like to start a list of relatively well-defined, narrow policy questions that need to be answered. I propose to ask the question and then put down an article that raises the questions. We can also list off some points in favor or against a specific policy. My idea is that these questions might be taken up by an editorial policy workgroup, with their answers worked into CZ policy pages. --Larry Sanger 23:54, 22 January 2007 (CST)
The use of inspirational quotes
Should illustrative or "inspirational" quotes, which are thought-provoking or interesting but not strictly necessary or central to the exposition of the article, be permitted? Scientific method
What is the neutral approach to introducing a topic with one definite interest group, or "constituency," and many minority views?
Neutrality requires a sympathetic presentation of competing viewpoints. But does that, in turn, require that one begin articles about religious figures--or, more generally, about anything that has one main interested party or "constituency"--by expressing the view of the topic's "constituency"? Jesus