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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/5/8 stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com>om>:
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/