Larry Sanger

But sympathetically, the best journalism, right, about problems actually makes a real attempt to sort of get inside the skin of everyone that's involved in a controversy.

So, now, if you want to say, for example, that an article about the shape of the Earth should just rule out the flat Earth theory, and so it's sort of out of the Overton window or something like that.

Or if you are, I don't know, editing an English encyclopedia and you don't think there is such a thing as a right to bear arms, right?

Then that would be out of your Overton window.

But then what you have to say is the...

The encyclopedia might be neutral within its bounds, but it has bounds.

And therefore, to that extent, it is actually biased.

And I'm comfortable saying that.

So there are degrees of neutrality.

Yeah.

Well, I think in, in a really robust, um,

robustly neutral resource.

They shouldn't be framed as fringe.

They shouldn't be framed by the authors of the article at all because the authors are not engaged in the

active framing.

That is not what they do.

Rather, they say that the flat earth theory is framed as fringe by mainstream geologists.

Yeah.

And that's really all you need to say.

If there is a question about which there is some dispute and a claim is made that somebody important, reasonably important anyway, disagrees with,