From: John Merrall
I've only just stumbled into the Wikipedia world, so maybe I'm
ignorant of
everything - but shouldn't simple reporting of
recorded historical
fact
fix most of the battles going on? Propagandizing does
seem to be a
problem
on your website (e.g. the Danzig and Silesia messes),
but isn't it
easier
to avoid by simply leaving out all value-judgments and
strictly
reporting
things that really exist?
Yes. Fortunately we can rely on the pool of perfectly accurate,
non-propagandizing, value-judgmentless historical references to do so.
Oops, they don't exist.
I think it's fair to have as a general principle that Wikipedia by and
large reflect the consensus truth of what is historical fact rather than
aggressively choose what it considers right, but that doesn't mean that
the consensus truth is necessarily accurate.
And discounting "wacko" disputes, most of the problem articles are on
topics in which there is currently huge dispute, such as the
Israel/Palestinian situation.