This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Roger Award article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joke awards don't have to be NPOV - edits to Wikipedia do. A comment that the judging was politically driven and not indedendantly audited has been removed as:
- it is already clear from the article that the selection of judges tend to create a left wing publicity stunt, but there is no evidence or attribution to show voting is rigged, which is what was implied.
- the awards are not independently audited in the same way that they do not have an approved plimsol line - they are joke awards, not juken Nissho annual reports. Even in non-joke awards independent audit for the voting of a small judging panel is pointless and simply not done. The implication that the awards should be audited is presumably done to cast an unnecessary aspersion of bias - ridiculous when the awards don't hide the fact they are biased. Winstonwolfe 06:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Market economic religious adulation has just rewritten this article - and NZ economic history - caution someones let the fanatics out!!!! 125.236.149.196 03:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Roger Award article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joke awards don't have to be NPOV - edits to Wikipedia do. A comment that the judging was politically driven and not indedendantly audited has been removed as:
- it is already clear from the article that the selection of judges tend to create a left wing publicity stunt, but there is no evidence or attribution to show voting is rigged, which is what was implied.
- the awards are not independently audited in the same way that they do not have an approved plimsol line - they are joke awards, not juken Nissho annual reports. Even in non-joke awards independent audit for the voting of a small judging panel is pointless and simply not done. The implication that the awards should be audited is presumably done to cast an unnecessary aspersion of bias - ridiculous when the awards don't hide the fact they are biased. Winstonwolfe 06:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Market economic religious adulation has just rewritten this article - and NZ economic history - caution someones let the fanatics out!!!! 125.236.149.196 03:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)