On 3/13/06, SPUI <drspui(a)gmail.com> wrote: *I* wouldn't believe the article because of its author. There's more to accuracy than just citing sources. Pedophiles can probably write as good an article about mathematics, psychology, anatomy, politics, history or theology, but when it comes to articles about the exploitation of minors I would be as likely to give an article by a pedophile as much credit as I'd give to an article about global warming written by a road lobbyist.

G'day Steve, We *don't* strive for balance. We strive for a neutral point-of-view. The distinction is small, but vital. Oh, goodness me, yes. -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 13/03/2006

G'day Steve, I'm after a different trifecta, me. I understand DICK and IAR just fine ... Basically, balance is "give all sides of the story, however ridiculous". We see this a lot in political reporting, particularly in America, I understand[0]. For example: Lyndon LaRouche is leading the charge to impeach Dick Cheney, whose plan to invade Iran and obliterate the area with nuclear weapons has been described as "Satanic". Cheney supporters, however, insist that rumours about his alleged taste for mass-murder are slightly exaggerated. "Balance" is a case of giving all participants in a case equal time, without prejudice as to who one judges a participant and who one does not (and "equal" is defined as "the side I like most gets more time"). It's a bankrupt concept that leads to absurdities like the one above (which, incidentally, is a 100% true case), or --- if that's too subtle --- the homeless bloke down the street getting equal time with a government agency, while he explains that the CIA are performing secret mind control experiments with gadgets they insert into his teeth while he sleeps. It is *not* neutrality, since, in allowing certain people a disproportionate amount of say in an article, we're arguing that these people are more significant, more important, and --- worst of all --- more likely to have some connection to reality than they actually do. WP:NPOV puts it like this: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. But personally I think my version's better, because it mentions Lyndon LaRouche and the CIA and mind-controlling gadgets, all of which (when not written by the wrong author) instantly increases the value of *any* email. <snip /> [0] Australia has its own absurd version. Anyone remember that fool Alston insisting that ABC News give the Coalition and Labor "equal time", so that one is not unfairly promoted over the other? Beautifully parodied (with dancing girls!) by /The Chaser/, way back in ... whenever it was. Too many Coalition govts, I've lost count. 2001? 1998? -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 13/03/2006

G'day Steve, It's not so much a case of "minority views" as "batshit views". Taking the LaRouche example --- it is not so much the insignicance of LaRouche that is important, to me, in the balance/neutrality debate, as it is the utter disconnection from reality. Dick Cheney isn't going to launch nukes against Iran tomorrow, and Lyndon LaRouche would certainly not be his strongest opponent were he to attempt to do so. Sometimes, of the two main sides of any story, only one is indeed the truth. I'll pick an example from the /Columbia Journalism Review/ ... Suppose that a bunch of anti-abortion lobbyists had recently discovered that abortion increases one's risk of breast cancer. Now, suppose that that is, in fact, a lie, and scientists stand firm that abortion, regardless of the moral issues concerned (let's not go there), has *no* relationship to breast cancer whatsoever. How should this story be reported? "Abortion activists have uncovered evidence that the risk of breast cancer increases dramatically in women who have had abortions. However, some scientists dispute this." And continuing on in the same vein. This could well be a good, balanced, newspaper article, with the reporter careful not to draw any conclusions, always giving both assertions equal time, and so on. It would also be complete bollocks: because, by not explaining that there is no link, that this is a fact and not just an assertion from certain (probably pinko abortion-loving) scientists, the journalist is allowing the reader to come away with the impression that there is a chance that a connection exists between cancer and abortions. The article really needs to deny such a connection. It would be NPOV to say "there is no link between cancer and abortions", because there is *nothing wrong* with reporting *pure, undisputable fact*. It would not, however, be balanced. Policy has its uses. Not as many as I've been told, but they *are* out there. Well, suppose one party were more newsworthy on a particular day? "Labor today unveiled their plans for Medicare Platinum, which would guarantee free health care for any Australian citizen or any non-citizen who can sing 'Waltzing Matilda'. Meanwile, the Liberals continue to set up a dais of some description, which they have termed a 'stage', in preparation for their big policy launch tomorrow night. We'll cut to Joe Bloggs for the financial news shortly, but don't worry, we'll have more on this fascinating dais story later in the programme." I trust the ABC to report fairly, accurately, and with the appropriate amount of timing and emphasis on each story. Neither the Coalition, nor Labor --- at least, when in power --- agrees, largely because exposing government lies is great when you're *not* the government, but otherwise quite a drag. Before Alston, I had never heard of anyone sitting and watching with a stopwatch, to *literally* enforce "equal time". -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.3/281 - Release Date: 14/03/2006

On 3/14/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevage(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Compare to my proposed version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Proposed_revision

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:01:54 -0500, you wrote: The articles on speed limits, speed cameras and so on are mostly written by people with an agenda against them :-) Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:44:58 +0000, you wrote: Not to my knowledge, but there is an article on Safe Speed. Smith used to be half reasonable until his three month "outage", since he returned from that his behaviour has been decidedly odd. I particularly like the way he has decided that increasing mobile phone use is "obviously" not the cause of any changes in road injury rates, while speed cameras are although the change in rates is in no way correlated with either the number of cameras or the length of road covered, and in any case applies mainly to motorcyclists :-) Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On 14/03/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevage(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: "I'm a bit concerned about X problem" "Have you considered building a new stretch of highway, Minister?" Surprisingly vocal group. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 3/14/06, Tony Sidaway &lt;f.crdfa(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: The only thing you're going to accomplish is that said pedophiles will continue to edit the article without admitting that they are pedophiles. What deters most people from violating the rules - the risk of losing a reputation - does not exist for them. They are already the single most hated group in society, what do they have to lose? So they will simply create a new identity and edit again. At least when they identify as pedophiles, we know that we have to watch out for their bias. So the question is: What do you care more about? That some media outlet doesn't pick up the fact that "tHERE ARE PEDOPHiles IN WIKIPEDIA oHM YGOD!!" or that our articles are neutral and well-sourced? If it's the former, you're making the typical mistake of thinking that hiding something will make it go away, only to have it blow up in your face when you don't expect it. If it's the latter, forcing people to hide their convictions is not a good way to go about it, no matter how despicable you may find them. Moral panic should not be a force of policy. The outcome is either arbitrary or a terrible precedent (e.g. should Mormons then be banned from editing LDS articles?). That WP:OFFICE is already leading to such outcomes is worrying. Erik

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Delirium stated for the record: We can only hope. If you can't conceal your bias, you shouldn't be editing. - -- Sean Barrett | My dog can lick anyone! sean(a)epoptic.org |

On 3/14/06, Sean Barrett &lt;sean(a)epoptic.org&gt; wrote: Depends how you define conceal. No competant POV pusher is openy going to admit thier bias so they hang areound on the edge where you still just about have to assume good faith. By comparison someone who admits thier bias can't do that so they have to be more nutural. -- geni

Sean Barrett wrote: I don't see what's wrong with judging people on their actual edits, using the principle of assume good faith. If someone is a devoutly fundamentalist Christian, but is able to edit Christianity-related articles neutrally and discuss reasonably with other editors, I see no reason to bar them. -Mark

On 3/14/06, Sam Korn &lt;smoddy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Depends on the religion. For the major ones this is probably true. For the less major ones (say Zoroastrianism) I suspect it may be posible to find such people. -- geni

On 3/14/06, Delirium &lt;delirium(a)hackish.org&gt; wrote: No. Allowing pedophile-fears to define our policy is an even more extreme example of letting the edge cases define the general than we already do. I emphatically do not agree with barring subject experts from participating in articles on their specialty, and that is what this kind of policy will end up doing. After all, it's hard to be an expert in anything and not have strong opinions about the topic, one way or another. Rather, we should simply be strict about our existing policies like NPOV, and ensuring that pedophiles and their apologists do not get to slant articles in their direction - especially since theirs is an extreme minority viewpoint, and the NPOV policy states that views held by an extreme minority do NOT have to get equal space (or indeed any space, in some cases). -Matt

On 3/15/06, Delirium &lt;delirium(a)hackish.org&gt; wrote: I suspect that when such article appears, it will be with rather less of the 'lol's and rather more of the high moral outrage. With a lynch-mob to follow, naturally. -Matt

Kirill Lokshin wrote: Why is it not a good comparison? There are many people who would argue that Satanists are no better than Stormfront members (possibly worse, if you believe the network-TV exposes on "satanic cults"). If indeed an individual keeps making superficially neutral edits that turn out not to be, then I would favor banning them---but *because of that*, not because they happen to be a neo-Nazi, or a pedophile, or a Satanist, or whatever the moral-panic-du-jour is. -Mark

On 3/15/06, Kirill Lokshin &lt;kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: And that should be *more* risk, of course! Kirill Lokshin

On 3/15/06, Delirium &lt;delirium(a)hackish.org&gt; wrote: I don't think that's entirely a bad thing. Unless we wish to ignore Wikipedia's reputation entirely, we should, within reason, avoid doing things likely to blow up in our face in a particluarly spectacular fashion. Whether any particular issue _is_ likely to blow up is open for debate, of course; but we shouldn't pretend that any decisions we make will have no reprecussions in the outside world. Kirill Lokshin

On 3/14/06, Delirium &lt;delirium(a)hackish.org&gt; wrote: Eh? I would be skeptical of an article on Christianity that had never been touched by a Christian. I would be skeptical of an article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that had never been touched by an Israeli (or a Palestinian) for that matter. The point is, you're saying "written" and I'm saying "touched". We generally don't have articles "written" by one person - lots of people stick a hand in and shape the article a bit. Particularly obnoxious editors may have a large influence, but generally the overall result takes into account the different influences fairly well. Steve