User:MrDroopy

Still getting my feet wet.... MrDroopy 07:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the lack of real NPOV in so many articles I read. There are phrases like "Unfortunately, ..." and "Fortunately, ..." that I think don't belong in an NPOV encyclopedia. Also I notice that views academically unpopular right now (like "Racism") are always treated with a running subtext of negativity instead of a serious attempt at neutrality. Conservative views of older or non-Western cultures are written off scornfully. Meanwhile, "scientific" and "nonscientific" are used as covert words for "good" and "bad" in the guise of rational neutrality.

I need to study more what NPOV really means to Wikipedia. It naturally reflects the predominant Western, nerd, libertarian culture of people who use computers and obsess a lot, as monitored vigorously by politically correct editors.

Some true and documented facts are actually illegal to state in some countries, for example if they would incline readers to hate, or insult the state or its founder, etc. I don't think Wikipedia should obey such laws, since many are merely political (or "politically correct") in motivation. This is true in democratic Europe, not only in dictatorships. Now it's illegal in Germany to say in that Adolph Hitler was a good draughtsman. (And it seemed that James Wales had on occasion personally intervened against including true assertions where he felt it would make Wikipedia politically unpopular; but I need to cite some good examples of this.) MrDroopy 07:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)