Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 7/28/07, Thomas Dalton
The bit that was funny was that it wasn't
clear vandalism - it was
Eh? Almost believable in the sense that it is almost believable that
John Seigenthaler was directly involved in the murders of RFK and JFK.
No, almost believable in the sense that similarly nonsensical stuff is
on Conservapedia and it isn't considered vandalism there.
On the one wiki, we've got Christian fundamentalists writing articles
based solely on their own POV. The result is articles that appear
ridiculous to non-Christian-fundamentalists who don't share their POV.
On the other wiki we've got white supremacists writing articles based
solely on their POV. I find it quite believable that they'd produce
articles that appear ridiculous to non-white-supremacists.
There is a difference between demonising your opponent
a degree that you will believe anything about them (even that
the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were not a forgery, but that
that it was "almost believable" as a representation of Jewish
thought at large), and taking a cool look at the real circumstances
in the cold light of day, and checking to see if you are joking *at*
the people in question, or whether you are helping them justify
their alienation by demonstrating that you aren't going to address
them on a level playing field, for whatever reasons.
If we were writing a Wikipedia article about them then I would most
heartily support making that article as NPOV as possible. That's what
Wikipedia is all about.
This is wikien-l. It's a discussion forum. We're allowed to have POVs here.