4 ms·
Sanger has some really great ideas, apparently. From his linked ballotpedia article on neutrality: > "A disputed topic is treated neutrally if each viewpoint a
by xyelos 6y ago
Sanger has some really great ideas, apparently. From his linked ballotpedia article on neutrality:
> "A disputed topic is treated neutrally if each viewpoint about it is not asserted but rather presented (1) as sympathetically as possible, bearing in mind that other, competing views must be represented as well, and (2) with an equitable amount of space being allotted to each, whatever that might be."
Because, yes, we should definitely give as much space to viewpoints that the earth is flat as to those that say the earth is round.
- LyndsySimon 6y agoYou should definitely mention it, and fully describe the belief without editorializing. If you don’t, it’s difficult to justify calling it an “encyclopedia”.
- defertoreptar 6y ago> Because, yes, we should definitely give as much space to viewpoints that the earth is flat as to those that say the earth is round. As long as scientific sources are referenced and the criticisms are acknowledged, what's the problem with having a flat earth Wikipedia article?
- LeoPanthera 6y agoNothing. And there is one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
- hedora 6y agoI think an article is treated neutrally when the person I agree with screams a lot and throws furniture at the dissenters until they curl into a submissive fetal position on the floor and admit they have lived hollow fruitless lives. I assume Sanger will update whatever lies you’ve referenced to spend equal time on my perspective.