Yes, primary and secondary education in history is almost always pro-that country's POV. So editors arrive having learned certain things in respectable settings and sincerely believe what they picked up in the classroom. A relatively small number of people study beyond that, many of whom read with the unrecognized intention of confirming the bias they've already acquired.
So of all our site's long term disputes, nationalism conflicts would be among the hardest to solve with the NPOV enforcement model. In medicine, by contrast, there's relative agreement about what's mainstream and what isn't.
-Durova
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:24 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/8 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Certainly is true that one side is nationalistic and self-centered and
the
other is undereducated and lacking in conceptual sophistication. But how does it help our discussion to to say either of these things?
The trouble with ethnic conflict articles is that, rather than a few problem editors, there's an effectively infinite stream of partisans. (For whatever reason: local education is often partisan rather than NPOV?) So, even though a core of opinionated-though-neutral editors accumulates, there's an eternal stream of people who don't know and don't care about NPOV or Wikipedia principles in general - as far as they're concerned, someone is being WRONG on the Internet.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l