In a message dated 4/2/2006 10:05:28 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au writes:
G'day Thom,
Is it ethical for a Wiki editor, who is also an
admistrator, to edit
both
sides of an issue?
If that editor is a good Wikipedian --- and, being an administrator, we
should hope he is --- then it is entirely appropriate for him (or her)
to edit any article he (or she) damn well pleases.
What if the editor only thinks he is a good wikipedian, but in
reality
by what he does, is actually promoting a POV? How is that
determined?
and where is the line drawn between good editing and POV pushing?
It's called "writing from a netural point-of-view", and some of us pride
ourselves on our ability to do just that.
If a reader, a researcher say, accesses the pages of standard and non-
standard theories, what kind of "neutrality" is he looking for? If
there is a
controversy between standard and non-standard, was it good editing
to
remove that controversy from the Wikientry? Is it "neutral" for
an admin
editor advocate of the standard theory to write "non-standard
theories are
widely discredited" on the non-standard theory page?
You might as well ask if it's ethical for me to edit an article about
Manchester United FC ...
You are assuming "good Wikipedian" but what about not-good
Wikipedian admin/editors? How do you identify them?
For example, what sort of evidence would you want if I were
to present a case against an aledged wikiadmin pov pusher?
tm