Neutrality
From SgWiki
[edit] Truth is never found by peer pressure but revelation from God
Neutrality
- Do you really believe that wikipedia' is "absolutely" neutral in its point of view? It is a claim but is it practical to impost it? Understanding-ably they all tried by Peer’’’ pressure, but it always come out with the majority opinion’’ on every issue it handles.
- Its so-called POV<point of view> is exactly also NPOV<non Point of View> or waht-they-call-it and they changed with every majority <consent-sir? > Opinions that is never neutral! Just political-cum-bias neutrality! I call it arrogance of another alien type, not homo! Nut-uniquely unique!
Quote Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views unquote from wikipedia
- To be neutral means trying to have a balanced between two or more opposites. Consequently the ideal stand would like an arrogant donkey for all note-able wikipedians!
- It notices the grass is greener on one side. However, when it glances from its direction of looking, the other side also looks greener. Ideally, the arrogant donkey is caught between two sides of greener grass always. Eventually it dies of starvation that is surely as pathetic as can be for anyone who tried to stand on neutral grounds always!
- Moral neutrality is an oxymoron also see definition of morality
- see institution
- see also Proofs of God
- also see believe
- I don't have fun at wikipedia 'cause there are too many
MORONsdoing nothing but deleting your hard-earned labored unique articles!165.21.154.111 10:17, 29 Sep 2005 (SGT)Arn't just like the arrogant donkey or arrogant donkeywhtever Lor ?
return to [[1]]
[edit] Would you allow yourself to be brain washed to believe that wikipedia is pure neutral in its NPOV
- goto see Terry's article on POV
