User talk:I'mDown
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome To My User Page
Feel free to talk.
[edit] Re: How dare you
Wikipedia's articles are not censored. What that means is that just because someone might find something offensive or inappropriate is not a reason to remove something from an article. (If that thing is not a helpful addition to the article in question, then it can be removed — that's not censorship.) However, Wikipedia has many, many rules regarding talk page interaction that are meant to foster civil discourse. It also has specific rules regarding what can be written about living persons that are meant to back up our core policies of attribution to reliable sources. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily disagree. I think there are several narratives that can and should be written into the Obama article; I think the Rezko deal and the stock issues could possibly now be successfully written into prose, even though both appear to have a relatively favorable end. (Though, for the record, I don't agree on the Drudge thing — he's pretty much the definition of an unreliable source. He's so anxious to be the first to "break" something, especially when it's negative towards Democrats considering his political leanings, that he's very often flat-out wrong or misleading. He also doesn't have to or pledge to adhere to any journalistic principles, unlike an organization like the New York Times or the Washington Times, where their standards are clearly written and delineated. That's enough of my ranting, though.) Anyway, I'm not saying you can't express your opinion — I'm simply saying that you have to express it in a civil way, much as you did with your response to my comment, which I greatly appreciate. If someone responds in an uncivil manner to you and I don't notice it, please let me know and I'll leave a similar comment with them. This isn't a taking sides issue, it's a "maintaining civil discourse" issue, which I think benefits all of us. Oh, and I don't disagree that lots of other articles have an inappropriate level of criticism with regard to the rest of the article, and they should be addressed. Unfortunately, with a lot of the articles you named and other similar ones, that's very difficult because consensus is difficult to achieve on such divisive topics. Barack Obama is what's termed a featured article, which requires that it be "stable", so you'll generally find more opposition to adding in recent topics that may or may not end up being notable in the long-run (which is supposed to be our aim as an encyclopedia). Anyway, that's enough from me. I do encourage you to keep discussing on the talk page, but to do so civilly, as you have done with me. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions or need any help. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
