Talk:Neutrality dispute: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(still the best title) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[n:]] to mean "best neutral view]] is very appealing. It would replace [[w:]] and would open the possibility of using [[Metaweb]] or another Wikipedia even, like [[Simple English Wikipedia]]. In fact the lookup could be per article with some hacks to the code. Though [[mediawiki]] will never do this, it being under the control of fascists, it seems easy to do it in [[tikiwiki]] or [[MoinMoin]], which are far better candidates for the [[Content Wiki]] anyway. | [[n:]] to mean "best neutral view]] is very appealing. It would replace [[w:]] and would open the possibility of using [[Metaweb]] or another Wikipedia even, like [[Simple English Wikipedia]]. In fact the lookup could be per article with some hacks to the code. Though [[mediawiki]] will never do this, it being under the control of fascists, it seems easy to do it in [[tikiwiki]] or [[MoinMoin]], which are far better candidates for the [[Content Wiki]] anyway. | ||
---------- | |||
This is still the wisest article - especially the redirect from [[neutral point of view]]. NPOV is not a noun describing a state, it only implies a process of detecting neutrality disputes, and it does not define that process in any way. So [[Consumerium:neutral point of view]] should redirect to [[Consumerium:dispute]] where all the issues and disputes are explained. | |||
Latest revision as of 17:29, 2 July 2004
n: to mean "best neutral view]] is very appealing. It would replace w: and would open the possibility of using Metaweb or another Wikipedia even, like Simple English Wikipedia. In fact the lookup could be per article with some hacks to the code. Though mediawiki will never do this, it being under the control of fascists, it seems easy to do it in tikiwiki or MoinMoin, which are far better candidates for the Content Wiki anyway.
This is still the wisest article - especially the redirect from neutral point of view. NPOV is not a noun describing a state, it only implies a process of detecting neutrality disputes, and it does not define that process in any way. So Consumerium:neutral point of view should redirect to Consumerium:dispute where all the issues and disputes are explained.