WikiEN-l September 2004

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

97 participants
176 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Biased "current events" stories
by Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales 19 Sep '04

19 Sep '04

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr is my own favorite example, and also the site of one of my extremely rare personal ventures into editing. There was a time when this article was heavily slanted in an anti-US fashion. The important tidbit is that the article went significantly beyond all mainstream sources in claiming that the U.S. broke the truce agreement. In fact, all mainstream sources were very vague on that point; there seems to be little information about what the truce agreement actually consisted of, and little information about how the fighting started again. However, my experience in helping on the article was quite good, but of course people may pay me more deference than I would otherwise deserve on the merits of my writing. My sense of it, though, and I do a *lot* of reading on talk pages and edit histories of controversial pages, is that the majority of contributors are willing to work with others to find a way to ensure that we don't make claims that go beyond the best available evidence. (I have not read the current version of the article.) --Jimbo

1 0

Biased "current events" stories
by Poor, Edmund W 19 Sep '04

19 Sep '04

Much Wikipedian rewriting of AP, Guardian and other news stories about the Bush Administration and Iraq slants the coverage even more those anti-US sources had already slanted the stories. This has got to stop. Wikipedia news coverage should not be slanted in ANY direction. Don't argue your points in news stories. Don't omit one side and emphasize another side, especially when the source you are quoting includes both sides. The US point of view is that they are liberating an oppressed Iraqi populace from a bloodthirsty, power-mad dictator. We should neither endorse nor oppose this POV. The rebels' point of view as that they are fighting against an imperial takeover aimed at subjugating an independent Iraqi populace for selfish and nationalistic purposes. We should neither endores nor oppose this POV. News stories tend to play up the "rebels vs. US" angle. They are quick to quote local witnesses who insinuate that the US is killing civilians wontonly in a war of aggression; this bolsters the argument that "the US is wrong". Please note that Wikipedia must not endorse or oppose this argument. If you want to argue that the US is guilty of war crimes, start a blog. Or write a general article which QUOTES prominent sources as making this argument. But don't sneak it into news stories. I'm asking you, please. Ed Poor A supporter of Jimbo's NPOV policy

9 14

Washington Post letter
by Sj 18 Sep '04

18 Sep '04

pg A24: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30326-2004Sep17.html Of course, the subtly misguided original was on the front page of the Tech section... I'm sure the Wikipedia disclaimer will be a point of debate for a long time to come. +sj+

2 2

Re: Biased "current events" stories
by Michael Snow 18 Sep '04

18 Sep '04

Dan Drake wrote: >[Bets being accepted on whether responses will point out that the stupid >American is unwittingly showing his own bias in that last sentence.] > We all show our biases periodically, and in fact most of the complaints both here and elsewhere that Wikipedia slants toward a certain POV in fact reveal more about the POV of the writer than some overriding POV in Wikipedia itself. Some individual articles do have serious POV problems depending on what the last author did with them. But Wikipedia as a whole is, if I may borrow Cimon Avaro's pogo stick, occasionally bumpy but not actually slanted in any particular direction. --Michael Snow

1 0

[Quarto] The first Wikimedia newsletter is finished
by Sj 18 Sep '04

18 Sep '04

Hello all, Wikimedia Quarto #1 is finished. It is being translated; please help if you can. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/NL-1/En%3A - Sj -- [[m:User:Sj]] ~ Huo dao lao, xue dao lao, hai you san fen xue budao

2 1

Foundation newsletter frozen, ready for proofreading and final translation
by Sj 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

Hello all, The first edition of the Foundation newsletter is ready for preview and proofreading. It includes a lot of information about the Board, overviews of the ongoing and newly-started projects, and an enthusiastic interview with Ward Cunningham. Please take a look : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/NL-1/En%3A Feedback, factual corrections, or requested updates may be left on the talk page. -- Sj

1 0

Criticism of Prem Rawat
by Poor, Edmund W 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

Anybody remember Guru Maharaj Ji? Well, there's a long running controversy at Wikipedia over how to characterize him. Apparently, it's the single biggest edit war we've ever had. One scholar has spent over 8 months researching the man, and a group of several dozen ex-followers is reverting like crazy. I think the way we handle this has important implications for our future credibility. Ed Poor Bureaucrat and NPOV Maven

2 1

RE: [WikiEN-l] Register, Round Three
by Poor, Edmund W 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

The article said we had no entry on a famous British moral philosopher. But by the time I did a search, our article was the best article available on Google. So either they WERE wrong, or they have BECOME wrong. All actors and politicians know that "There is no such thing as bad publicity." You want to kill something? Ignore it. (What you pay attention to, grows.) Ed Poor

2 1

Re: Register, Round Three
by Michael Snow 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

Jim Redmond wrote: >Ah, but the problem is that, as a grassroots effort, we have no control >over the impulses of our participants. Our more... fanatic... devotees >are likely to respond to this latest slight with mouths a-foaming and >fingers a-misspelling. > Oh well, at least while they're busy flaming The Register they won't be foaming misspelled POV all over our nice articles. --Michael Snow

2 1

Re: [customer.support@orbimage.com: Illegal Use of SeaWiFS / OrbView-2 imagery]
by Michael Snow 17 Sep '04

17 Sep '04

Delirium wrote: > Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote: > >> We will need to do a search to determine if we have other images from >> this site as well. The error was due to the assumption that if it is >> on the Nasa site, and is a picture from space, it is in the public >> domain. > > In a brief spot-check of 30 NASA images, no others were from SeaWiFS, > so if there are any others, they seem to be in a small minority. It's > hard to check for them though, as they come from various NASA sites > under the company's agreement with NASA, and not from a separate > SeaWiFS site. There is a http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov, but the only > references we have to that site are external links, not images. So > I'm guessing we're okay. There was actually one more from SeaWiFS, uploaded by the same user, who was able to provide the source on a third one that seemed questionable. The copyrighted one that needs to be removed is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Azov_sea_sat.jpg It didn't occur to me until people started tracking down the Black Sea image, but I'm guessing this one is also uploaded and used on other Wikipedias. --Michael Snow

2 1

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
18
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l September 2004