[Wikipedia-l] Helga again

[Jimmy Wales]

Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> > And I refuse to write "although most scholars believe Hitler was always a
> > Jew-hater, some people claim that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany first",
> > which is what we'd need to include Helga's theses.
> 
> So let someone else write it.
> 
> Do you contend that there are not people in the world who
> have made, and continue to make, these kind of allegations?
> I personally have seen/heard this kind of stuff from people 
> in North America in person and on the internet.

I think this cuts straight to the heart of how difficult NPOV can be
at times.

In _many_ cases, it is easy to get to NPOV by simply "going meta".  If
something is entirely uncontroversial, we can say 'X'.  If it is
somewhat controversial, we can say "most scholars say X".  But when
there is opposition to X but only by lunatics and frauds, it is NOT
NPOV to simply "go meta".

I don't think, Michael, that you closely read what Vicki says that she
refuses to write.  The _reason_ she refuses to write it is that it is
not NPOV.

Getting to NPOV in this case does not involve giving credence to
suggestions that Hitler didn't _really_ hate Jews, nor does it involve
giving credence to suggestions that Jews started the war with Nazi
Germany.

What needs to be written about the situation in Germany leading up to
World War II is a frank discussion of tensions between Jews and
non-Jews, with attention given to the sources of those tensions.  This
part of the discussion must not be framed in such a way as to suggest
that the Holocaust was deserved, etc.  But it also need not shy away
from a discussion of the reasons that even previously normal people in
Germany were swept up in the anti-Jewish venom of the day.

It would be very hard to get to where we want to be starting with
Helga's nonsense.

> Would you care to hazard a guess regarding how much of 
> Helga's current attitudes result from restricted access to 
> information during her early education or indoctrination?

But the purpose of Wikipedia is not to rescue Helga from her poor
education.  We need not _morally_ condemn her in order to ask her to
stop writing nonsense.  We can have all the compassion (and
well-meaning condescension) in the world for her plight, and still
refuse to put up with it.

> I think all views and evidence someone chooses to present
> belong somewhere in the Wikipedia.

This is NOT our policy, nor has it ever been.  NPOV is more subtle and
difficult than this.  Wikipedia is not the place for factions to
present competing "views".  We can _report on_ those views, in an
appropriate context, but we must not allow them to distract from our
fundamentally _encyclopedic_ mission, which necessarily involves
summary and selection.

--Jimbo