-----Original Message----- From: Alec Conroy [mailto:alecmconroy@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 04:37 AM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is NPOV non-negotiable? (and if so, why are debating it?)
When the BADSITES movement first started, I hoped that time would show that it was a policy which was fundamentally incompatible with NPOV. Time did just that, and after MakingLights and MichaelMoore, I think there's a pretty clear understanding that, in the case of notable subjects, BADSITES and NPOV can't coexist. This is what I had hoped people would eventually see.
What I never even fathomed, however, was that some people, when faced with a conflict between NPOV and BADSITES, would argue that NPOV is the one that has to go!
____________________________ Response by Fred: First thing, we don't have a BADSITES policy. That policy was debated and rejected. I did not support it. On the other hand, neutral point of view is a fundamental policy which is not open for debate. However, in practice, we do not always perfectly conform to NPOV. Usually we don't talk about those instances or with deliberation violate NPOV. With respect to harassment of our editors by an external website, what the arbitration committee did in one case, where there was egregious harassment, was to remove all links to it. However, that was an extreme case. Most of the instances considered in the current cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites are quite different on the facts, although a case can be made that links should not be made to AntiSocialMedia.net.
In the case of Michael Moore's website, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites...
What we had there was aggressive editing by an attorney, who is a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. His editing wasn't that good, he kept putting tendentious original research into the article [[Sicko]] and wanted to make that article into a debate on health care, not just a report on Moore's film. (This is a close question). Anyway whoever runs Moore's site, put this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Arbcom.jpg
on the main page of the site. Notice it contains links to edit both [[Sicko]] and our editor's user page.
There are a bunch of considerations. One is that Sicko, finally, brings to public attention information which has not been generally presented by American media. This is right up our alley, fair representation of a significant point of view. Another is that our editor, in a clumsy propagandistic way, was trying to muddy the waters. So whoever runs Moore's site decides to fight back, not by engaging in debate, but by attacking the editor. Thus the question arose of removing the link to his site. A link we would ordinarily want to include. Those who wanted to remove the link argued that it was an attack on our user. Those who didn't argued that there should be a link to his site. And the consensus is, that we won't remove it.
However, how to deal with it. Both we and whoever runs Moore's website look ridiculous. A bit of negotiation and they look better, but we have a nice example of why cookie cutter policies don't always work. If there is a lesson, it is to thoughtfully consider each individual situation and to do what is appropriate in that particular situation. Temporarily removing the link to his site is one option.
End of Fred's response (Sorry to not write more, and not to cover all considerations.) ___________________________________________________
So, for example, not to pick on Fred, but he seems to be in this camp. Let's assume, as we must, that he wouldn't REALLY have had us redirect Michael Moore to Clown. I'm still puzzled as to what his stance is when he says :
Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.
How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?
Not at all. That's why it needs to be out in the open.
Fred further explains,"I did not suggest it or support it. I am only noting what we did. And that the community supports it"
It stills seems like Fred's basic understanding of the BADSITES situation is:
1. BADSITES (and its ilk) demand deletion of all links to harassment. 2. Michael Moore was a harasser, his link should have been deleted. 3. But, overwhelming consensus demanded, in spite of policy, that the link still be included. When asked what he learned from the Michael Moore experience, Fred said he learned,"If a powerful leftwing celebrity attacks a rightwing Wikipedia editor on his website, his supporters on Wikipedia should be able, as a practical matter, to prevent removal of links to his site." and "sometimes the bad guys win". 4. NPOV means that all the rules SHOULD be applied equally to everyone. 5. But since prominent subjects will have enough supporters to overturn BADSITES in some cases, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." This isn't consistent with NPOV, but be may as well make it explicit.
It just seems like any way you slice it, NPOV and BADSITES don't get along. What shocks me, however, is that even among people who appear to recognize this, I don' see any loss of support for BADSITES. Instead, it seems like there's a grudging acceptance that NPOV is going to have to be bent a little to accomodate the more important goal of BADSITES.
Am I right? I'm totally reading tea leaves here when I summarize what I think Fred's POV is. (fred, please correct my errors).
But that's the impression I'm left with, after reading the discussion. If NPOV is non-negotiable, why is its application under negotiation? And if a policy or principle comes down which isn't consistent with NPOV-- which one should govern?
Alec
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
First thing, we don't have a BADSITES policy. That policy was debated and rejected. I did not support it.
Indeed, but we do have some of its supporters carrying on as though it were a done deal
On the other hand, neutral point of view is a fundamental policy which is not open for debate.
I would say "principle" rather than "policy". One thing about principles is that they can be terribly difficult to pin down, and converting them to policy becomes a kind of adulteration. Nevertheless, they still override everything.
Ec