Kasreyn 09:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC) POV or not, there is still valid (and potentially retrievable) info in there.
The article will be more NPOV without the section, and that being the case, it is better off blanked. The section is POV in nature and cannot be rewritten until sources are found, and they haven't been found yet. It does not, however, invalidate the appropriateness of my action. The fact that I said "good riddance" as I did so may reflect poorly upon my temper, and for that I apologize, for whatever it's worth. It's inexplicable to me but I swear I posted my comment to *this* talk page, not that one I *thought* that I had given sufficient warning. Apparently it has somehow been moved to the System Shock article talk page, and so it may appear that I made the change without warning. When I made the edit I was under the impression that my original comment on the flaws in the criticism section had been on the talk page for months. Furthermore, the criticisms are all unsourced and stated in weasel-words, making it clear that they are merely the personal opinions of whoever originally wrote them. It contains only criticisms and no praise, which is a negative bias. Instead of blanking content with the promise of research and balanced critiques, leave the section as is until you are ready to edit to the balanced version. Completely removing the criticisms section along with the comments "good riddance" is a flagrant pov violation. I reverted to the npov version that includes criticisms. When I get a chance I will attempt to research and include a section with balanced critiques of the game, citing sources. In the interests of NPOV I have removed the criticism section.
As I mentioned in my edit summary, the section was full of weasel words, none of the criticisms cited had any sources, and the article lacked any equivalent section for critical praise of the game. My old comments about this section appear to have been moved to the System Shock article's talk page.
0 kommentar(er)
