What s wrong with this you have just proved my point Example of how Editor s can infringe all of the above Law is meant to take the most unbiased approach possible yet some wikipedia editors belive otherwise and will unedit posts that they believe to be against wikipedias laws Take for example Internet spam is equally common in the modern age however publicly declaring people website or company s of spamming is illegal and is classed as defamation There has been much debate that Wikipedia is in breach of the law with their spam project Whereby Wikipedia lists apparent spam websites The internet is dynamic and so is Wikipedia by Wikipedia editors putting links up on the spam project page declaring that the website is a spam website or has been spamming holds know evidence as there is no evidence to suggest the owners of the website where responsible and it wasn t a competitor or rival website trying to negatively effect that websites reputation by trying to get them on Wikipedia spam list By deleting this section of post will show that wikipedia does not have a Neutral point of view at all and is nt a open for valid and correct information if it goes against something to do with wikipedia By keeping the above would show that wikipedia is open and accepts law as a valid and neutral point of view