Seems pretty important to require a neutral tone regardless of how egregious the acts are described in the entry.
This is what makes Wikipedia good.
Seems pretty important to require a neutral tone regardless of how egregious the acts are described in the entry.
This is what makes Wikipedia good.
I think that goes without saying. The real question is what's the line between neutrality and letting a vocal minority dictate editorial decisions? Especially when the vocal minority has biased incentives towards making those changes.
> Another editor responded: “There's also an ‘ongoing controversy’ over whether mRNA vaccines cause ‘turbo cancer’ and whether [Donald] Trump actually won the 2020 Presidential election. Do you want us to be [bold] and go edit those articles as well?”
[flagged]
Is it true that "trust a majority" is a "good"? Or just the opinion of the majority?
If it's a majority of topic experts, I think it is. I work with many (might even include myself) and we disagree constantly. If we do agree on something, I'm fairly confident it's accurate and trustworthy.
You can read their arguments on the discussion page; don't act like this is just an appeal to authority.