Isn’t it enough to just accept a sort of NPOV convention? People can disagree that “you should practice lying” but they can hardly disagree that “some people have argued you should practice lying”.
That’s not much good as a guide to action, then, is it?
When the issue being discussed is how we can justify claims, no actual assertion can be ‘neutral’ in the Wikipedia sense, because even the statement that some position has been taken falls under question.
When the issue being discussed is how we can justify claims, no actual assertion can be ‘neutral’ in the Wikipedia sense, because even the statement that some position has been taken falls under question.
I’d respond to this but I can’t prove that you said it.
I suppose it depends on whether you want the wiki to function as a source of ideas or as an actual authority to defer to.
A rationality wiki based on distributed source control, so we can all accept whichever changes we like? Saves a lot of fighting...
Isn’t it enough to just accept a sort of NPOV convention? People can disagree that “you should practice lying” but they can hardly disagree that “some people have argued you should practice lying”.
That’s not much good as a guide to action, then, is it?
When the issue being discussed is how we can justify claims, no actual assertion can be ‘neutral’ in the Wikipedia sense, because even the statement that some position has been taken falls under question.
I’d respond to this but I can’t prove that you said it.
I suppose it depends on whether you want the wiki to function as a source of ideas or as an actual authority to defer to.