User:Martin0001
This page is under construction.
I have nothing to say here that was not said before,
And I lack any skill in the crafting of verse.
Yet, though I lack even the thought to help others,
I’ve composed this to familiarise my mind.
For, due to acquaintance with what is constructive,
The force of my belief may increase, even just for a moment,
And if others equal to myself in fortune happen to see them,
Perhaps they might find them meaningful too.[1]
The Means
[edit]Core content policies: NPOV, V, & NOR
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
The Danger
[edit]Ownership of articles (precious!)
The Solution
[edit]- No angry mastodons
- Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
- Don't edit war over the colour of templates
- Don't be a dick
- No personal attacks
- Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack
- Don't call the kettle black
- Wikilove
- Wikipeace
How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People
Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article.
This is the reason the Neutral Point of View policy exists. News providers have a POV, but we report what they report from a neutral perspective, not exclude them.
Editor Blueboar contributes:
Wikipedia does not equate Bias with Unreliability... thus, a reliable source can be biased (and conversely a biased source can be reliable). The important thing is that we should not be biased in our articles (see WP:NPOV).
Verifiability:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
Regarding Fox News, Editor Protonk contributes:
Regardless of what you may think of Fox News, they have news crews, editors, fact checkers and so forth.
Fox News serves as an excellent case study about how an allegedly bias news body is still considered a reliable source. For the most part, the primary reasons I’ve found regarding it’s exclusion relate more to disliking it than NPOV policy:
...while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is ‘unencyclopedic’.
References
[edit]- ^ Shantideva, Bodhisattvacharyavatara, 2-3 Chap. 1., Berzin, A. Translation. http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/e-books/unpublished_manuscripts/bca_shantideva/translation/engaging_bodhisattva_01.html