On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Rob wrote:
Part of it is that we're talking about different types of things. The
Kerry
controversy is ultimately about factual claims, and therefore whether our
article harms John Kerry depends on whether we give undue weight to those
claims. This one isn't about factual claims; it's about creating an
unpleasant association, so avoiding undue weight isn't enough to keep it
from doing harm.
I don't understand this kind of hairsplitting. Documenting
fabrications is acceptable, but only the right kind of fabrications?
Aren't, say, the "factual claims" of Birthers about creating
"unpleasant associations" with Obama? The last thing we need in
Wikipedia is more systemic bias, and this is what that hairsplitting
would lead to.
"Person X is like shit" is unpleasant in a very different way from
"person
X is a liar". The latter creates an unpleasant association with that person
only to the degree that that person is believed to have committed unpleasant
activities. The former creates an unpleasant association on an emotional
level.
You can write a balanced article that reports the claim that Obama is a liar
without making the audience think Obama is a liar. You cannot do this
when the article is about comparing a person to shit.
If you don't think the Birther claims work on an emotional level, then
you haven't been paying attention to them. All such conspiracy claims
work on an emotional level, as their adherents have proven impervious
to the intervention of logic and facts. You're trying to make a
distinction between two kinds of "claims" that does not exist. How do
we incorporate that kind of hairsplitting into policy? And if we
managed to do so, it would create a systemic bias, favoring one kind
of targeted fabrication over another.