On Wed, 24 May 2006 17:07:04 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote:
Our definition of "public interest" is not
the same definition as the
PRC's. While we're flinging about the "slippery slope" argument with
gay abandon, I could argue that you are in favour of us throwing away
all editorial standards. We would no longer be able to argue that
such-and-such is irrelevant, because That's Censorship, And Censorship
Is Bad. We would have to print everything we could get our hands on; we
could not decide not to include something of no import, because if it's
negative and we leave it out we'd be as bad as the Chinese government ...
And how do you know that your definition of public interest is a Good one while that of
PRC is a Bad one? It's all in the Interest of the Public, as decided by some appointed
moral guardian who has nothing to do with the Public and most probably doesn't give a
fuck about what happens to the Public. I repeat, Wikipedia is not the moral police and it
must not start deciding what information are in public interest and what are not, that way
lies madness.
Wikipedia does not and should not report lies as truth
merely because
some filthy rag has published them. Being truthful is an inherent
component of neutrality --- if we do not report the truth, we are
showing bias towards those who want to spread lies.
Wikipedia should not report anything as Truth. Why do you get to decide the Truth when
the owner of Wikipedia Review doesn't? What objective benchmark are you using to
decide that your Truth is superior and more in Public Interest than jis one?.
Example A:
"Lyndon LaRouche is a popular and powerful American politician. He has
become famous worldwide for his expos?s of Dick Cheney's plan to flatten
Iran with nuclear weapons, the Queen of England's secret Satanic
connections, and the influence of Masonic Jewish Bankers in
international politics. He earned critical acclaim in 2004 after
finally completing the construction of the Eurasian Land Bridge, and has
been hailed as a modern-day Marco Polo. His critics, however, deny this."
That violates the existing policy of NPOV, not some imagined one about Public Interest.
What we should be saying is "Lyndon LaRouche has made these claims [insert source],
but his critics have opposed him[insert source]". We are not asserting the Truth of
anything, just reporting everything in a neutral way without concern about whether
Lyndon's claims are in Public Interest.
Example B:
Lyndon LaRouche once had sex with a 15-year-old girl while he was 16 (or
17 while 18, or insert your own age of consent laws here). So far the
authorities have refused to do anything about this accusation since it
surfaced in 2005, sixty years after the fact, but a small group of
dedicated Internet slander-mongers are working hard to bring this
troubling issue to light.
Again, the problem is NPOV and not Public Interest. If some source has claimed that
Lyndon had sex with a minor then we attrinute the statement to that source, otherwise we
remove it. Defamation suits can be avoided by not making assertions. An encyclopedia is a
tertiary source. making assertions and presenting the Truth is not our job. [[WP:ROUGE]]
has some interesting views about the consequences of trying to report the Truth rather
than the NPOV.
Molu
---------------------------------
Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1ยข/min with Yahoo! Messenger
with Voice.