This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people:
http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
Rick wrote:
This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people:
http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm
I'm not sure that's the case. They selectively quote part of the article, and seem mostly pleased by some facts we have in the article that aren't all that widely reported elsewhere. Unless these facts turn out to be false, I don't think we should remove them from the article simply because one or the other side in a political contest likes to quote them.
-Mark
This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs
SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people:
http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm
RickK
Embroiders what it cites from WP.
Charles
They had to edit out most of the article to get their nuggets of negativity. One hopes that the Bushies stupid enough to think that this is the whole article will follow the example of their "leader" and be sufficiently incurious not to look at it themselves, so we don't have another wave of vandalism to deal with.
Stan
Rick wrote:
This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people:
http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm
RickK
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
Subject: Google News Alert - Wikipedia From: newsalerts-noreply@google.com newsalerts-noreply@google.com Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 05:15:01 -0700 (PDT) To: giantsrick13@yahoo.com
To: giantsrick13@yahoo.com
MORE Kerry Facts The Media Will Not Disclose BushCountry - USA To find a fair and well-documented biography of John F. Kerry, and discover who this Presidential candidate really is, go to this Wikipedia Encyclopedia: ... http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm
This as-it-happens News Alert is brought to you by Google News (BETA)...
Remove this News Alert: http://www.google.com/newsalerts/remove?s=aeadc3b1513bc7fa&hl=en
Create another News Alert: http://www.google.com/newsalerts?hl=en
Try Google News: http://news.google.com/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It occurs to me that it is entirely possible that a Republican might praise the article precisely because it is neutral and factual.
It is only natural for honest opponents of Kerry's election to feel that a factual description of his record, particularly a factual description that highlights facts that may be relevant but which are not widely discussed in the soundbite-friendly partisan media, helps to educate voters who, being honest, will naturally come to better understand why people oppose Kerry's election.
I am quite sure that many Democratic activists (perhaps the sort who like to call their political opponents "dumbasses", not naming any names here) will read our Bush article with similar joy, due to it naming some facts that these partisans feel are scandalous, but which Bush supporters may greet with either a yawn or even admiration.
The test of NPOV is not "does one side really like it?" because that assumes bad faith, that the only reason someone could like an article is that it is biased.
The test of NPOV is "do both sides like it?" This is assuming good faith, i.e. that all sides of any controversial issue are typically good people who are not "dumbasses" and who have a sincere interest in a fair presentation of the facts.
--Jimbo
I agree with jimbo here, I read some parts of the Kerry article and it appears to me that it does adhere to wiki's policy of NPOV, as it should! :o)
"Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote: It occurs to me that it is entirely possible that a Republican might praise the article precisely because it is neutral and factual.
It is only natural for honest opponents of Kerry's election to feel that a factual description of his record, particularly a factual description that highlights facts that may be relevant but which are not widely discussed in the soundbite-friendly partisan media, helps to educate voters who, being honest, will naturally come to better understand why people oppose Kerry's election.
I am quite sure that many Democratic activists (perhaps the sort who like to call their political opponents "dumbasses", not naming any names here) will read our Bush article with similar joy, due to it naming some facts that these partisans feel are scandalous, but which Bush supporters may greet with either a yawn or even admiration.
The test of NPOV is not "does one side really like it?" because that assumes bad faith, that the only reason someone could like an article is that it is biased.
The test of NPOV is "do both sides like it?" This is assuming good faith, i.e. that all sides of any controversial issue are typically good people who are not "dumbasses" and who have a sincere interest in a fair presentation of the facts.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Interesting comment Jimbo, which leaves open the possibility that we're all suckers ("dumbasses") for voting for _any_ of these people as it just encourages them. "Sincere interest in a fair presentation of the facts" by those addicted to power is an awfully tenuous assumption (hence you end up with organisations with oxymoronic descriptions such as "Fox News - fair and balanced").
Christiaan
On 4 Aug 2004, at 5:23 am, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
It occurs to me that it is entirely possible that a Republican might praise the article precisely because it is neutral and factual.
It is only natural for honest opponents of Kerry's election to feel that a factual description of his record, particularly a factual description that highlights facts that may be relevant but which are not widely discussed in the soundbite-friendly partisan media, helps to educate voters who, being honest, will naturally come to better understand why people oppose Kerry's election.
I am quite sure that many Democratic activists (perhaps the sort who like to call their political opponents "dumbasses", not naming any names here) will read our Bush article with similar joy, due to it naming some facts that these partisans feel are scandalous, but which Bush supporters may greet with either a yawn or even admiration.
The test of NPOV is not "does one side really like it?" because that assumes bad faith, that the only reason someone could like an article is that it is biased.
The test of NPOV is "do both sides like it?" This is assuming good faith, i.e. that all sides of any controversial issue are typically good people who are not "dumbasses" and who have a sincere interest in a fair presentation of the facts.
--Jimbo
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
"Sincere interest in a fair presentation of the facts" by those addicted to power is an awfully tenuous assumption
Perhaps, but I think that the majority of people by far are not "addicted to power" and that a higher level of discourse is not only desirable, but possible.
It would please me greatly to see our articles on Bush and Kerry linked and praised by activists on both sides, because that would tell me that we are likely doing our job well.
The is the essence of NPOV -- a fair presentation that all sides can accept as a productive summary of the topic. I think most people appreciate that, even though the usual tendency in political discourse is to be highly partisan.
--Jimbo
On 4 Aug 2004, at 4:33 pm, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Christiaan Briggs wrote:
"Sincere interest in a fair presentation of the facts" by those addicted to power is an awfully tenuous assumption
Perhaps, but I think that the majority of people by far are not "addicted to power" and that a higher level of discourse is not only desirable, but possible.
Agreed, absolutely.
Christiaan
Rick wrote:
This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people: http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm RickK
So the power-elite are all hypocritical psychopaths, what's new?
Christiaan
"Ask yourself is THIS the person you want as President of these United States [...] ? Do we want this man who is so clearly influenced by Europeans as our Commander-in-Chief, especially at such a time as this? "
priceless.
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:58:25 -0700 (PDT), Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people:
http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm
RickK
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
Rick wrote:
This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people:
http://www.bushcountry.org/news/aug_news_pages/n_080204_kerry_facts.htm
They can't even get English spelling and grammar right. I don't pay them any credibility.