One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV. Wikipedia administrator David Gerard recently wrote on this mailing list, "NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." In fact, Wikipedia is a battleground in which the opinions of the most competitive group win out, rather than some theoretical neutral POV. Many of you are far more knowledgeable about the POV pushers at Wikipedia and know exactly how patently false the NPOV doctrine is.
A Wikipedia article was recently written about Alan Cabal that, in my opinion, met Wikipedia's notability standards beyond a doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_articl...). It was speedy deleted on March 30th, 2009 within hours of being re-created. A deletion review followed which was conducted like a 4th AfD and the outcome was that the speedy delete was upheld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30). Throughout there was talk of keeping one's personal views to oneself. Completely ridiculous considering user Bali ultimate, who nominated the Alan Cabal article for speedy deletion, later admitted that he had been watching its rewrite very closely for weeks and that's why he had pounced! Immediately afterward I looked into David Gerard's aphorism and, looking far back, found that he had said the same thing years ago on another Wikipedia mailing list: "I think NPOV is our greatest innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2007-August/029947.html)
Now there is an ongoing discussion in the CounterPunch article about how mere mentions of Alan Cabal are being expunged from the entire website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Expunging_Alan_Cable_.28Alan_...). The CounterPunch article already has a sordid history. For example, on January 28th, 2009, user Jarjam copyedited the CounterPunch article to say, "CounterPunch has also been criticized for publishing articles by authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have defended the pro-Hitler persepective of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. Zundel is the author of 'The Hitle We Loved and Why'."(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=267015135&am...). Nearly two months later this "unsourced libellous claim of contributors being pro-Hitler" was removed by user Rd232, on March 22nd 2009 to be exact (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=278994805&am...). Instead of getting it right, Alan Cabal's article "Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel" was simply left out of the article and then on April 5th, 2009, user Verbal removed the last mention of Alan Cabal that remained in the CounterPunch article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=281912735&am...). David Gerard truly believes there is a NPOV on this website, and has even defended his ownership over his future Barlett quotation: "Mostly I'm the person I know of calling it Wikipedia's greatest innovation ;-p much more so than merely letting anyone edit the website. Are there others?" (June 2008, David Gerard, http://infoholics-anonymous.blogspot.com/2008/06/changing-world-via-wikipedi...)
Such a thorough job has been done this past week of wiping Wikipedia clean of any mention of Alan Cabal that even the Wikipedia article for New York Press no longer lists him as a former contributor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=281915790&...). David Gerard so firmly believes that Wikipedia has a NPOV that he can be found repeating again and again, "Wikipedia’s fundamental content policy of Neutral Point of View is, in my opinion, its greatest innovation - far greater than merely letting anyone edit the website." ( September 2007, David Gerard) (http://ivo.co.za/2007/09/20/wikipedia-as-efficient-market/) On his blog: "I consider the Neutral Point Of View policy our most important innovation, far more so than letting anyone edit the site." (http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/12/17/rorschach-knols/) (December 2007, David Gerard).
Probably the reason Alan Cabal has been viciously persecuted by Wikipedians for over a year now is because he has defended the freedom of speech of holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. But then again Alan Cabal has written so many controversial articles over the years that I guess Wikipedians could have many reasons for suppressing his biography and work. For the last time, I leave you with another permutation of what is surely David Gerard's greatest quote: "NPOV is Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than letting any idiot edit the website." (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/92817)
Sincerely, Bill Carter
I notice that the most bitter disputes tend to be about controversial journalists. I myself consider him of borderline notability. However, since the standard for inclusion of a person in article content content is not the person mentioned being notable, but of being pertinent and sourced, I reverted the removal from the article on the NYP article, and warned the person who did it about removal of sourced material without discussion.
I haven't looked at CounterPunch yet, which has a more complicated history.
We do aim at NPOV, and I and almost everyone at Wikipedia will try to help achieve it. But obviously with our basic principle of editing violations cant be prevented--and probably can not all be corrected either. But we can work towards it.. It takes persistence and patience.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Bill Carter billdeancarter@yahoo.com wrote:
One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV. Wikipedia administrator David Gerard recently wrote on this mailing list, "NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." In fact, Wikipedia is a battleground in which the opinions of the most competitive group win out, rather than some theoretical neutral POV. Many of you are far more knowledgeable about the POV pushers at Wikipedia and know exactly how patently false the NPOV doctrine is.
A Wikipedia article was recently written about Alan Cabal that, in my opinion, met Wikipedia's notability standards beyond a doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_articl...). It was speedy deleted on March 30th, 2009 within hours of being re-created. A deletion review followed which was conducted like a 4th AfD and the outcome was that the speedy delete was upheld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30). Throughout there was talk of keeping one's personal views to oneself. Completely ridiculous considering user Bali ultimate, who nominated the Alan Cabal article for speedy deletion, later admitted that he had been watching its rewrite very closely for weeks and that's why he had pounced! Immediately afterward I looked into David Gerard's aphorism and, looking far back, found that he had said the same thing years ago on another Wikipedia mailing list: "I think NPOV is our greatest innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2007-August/029947.html)
Now there is an ongoing discussion in the CounterPunch article about how mere mentions of Alan Cabal are being expunged from the entire website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Expunging_Alan_Cable_.28Alan_...). The CounterPunch article already has a sordid history. For example, on January 28th, 2009, user Jarjam copyedited the CounterPunch article to say, "CounterPunch has also been criticized for publishing articles by authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have defended the pro-Hitler persepective of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. Zundel is the author of 'The Hitle We Loved and Why'."(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=267015135&am...). Nearly two months later this "unsourced libellous claim of contributors being pro-Hitler" was removed by user Rd232, on March 22nd 2009 to be exact (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=278994805&am...). Instead of getting it right, Alan Cabal's article "Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel" was simply left out of the article and then on April 5th, 2009, user Verbal removed the last mention of Alan Cabal that remained in the CounterPunch article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=281912735&am...). David Gerard truly believes there is a NPOV on this website, and has even defended his ownership over his future Barlett quotation: "Mostly I'm the person I know of calling it Wikipedia's greatest innovation ;-p much more so than merely letting anyone edit the website. Are there others?" (June 2008, David Gerard, http://infoholics-anonymous.blogspot.com/2008/06/changing-world-via-wikipedi...)
Such a thorough job has been done this past week of wiping Wikipedia clean of any mention of Alan Cabal that even the Wikipedia article for New York Press no longer lists him as a former contributor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=281915790&...). David Gerard so firmly believes that Wikipedia has a NPOV that he can be found repeating again and again, "Wikipedia’s fundamental content policy of Neutral Point of View is, in my opinion, its greatest innovation - far greater than merely letting anyone edit the website." ( September 2007, David Gerard) (http://ivo.co.za/2007/09/20/wikipedia-as-efficient-market/) On his blog: "I consider the Neutral Point Of View policy our most important innovation, far more so than letting anyone edit the site." (http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/12/17/rorschach-knols/) (December 2007, David Gerard).
Probably the reason Alan Cabal has been viciously persecuted by Wikipedians for over a year now is because he has defended the freedom of speech of holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. But then again Alan Cabal has written so many controversial articles over the years that I guess Wikipedians could have many reasons for suppressing his biography and work. For the last time, I leave you with another permutation of what is surely David Gerard's greatest quote: "NPOV is Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than letting any idiot edit the website." (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/92817)
Sincerely, Bill Carter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree that in many instances, there can be a bitter editing war that doesn't necessarily end up with a NPOV being selected, but in my view, most of the time, patience & persistence win, leading to most articles being relatively neutral. By no means would I say it was perfect & there are probably things that can be done to improve it, but on the whole it is one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths; not least because to the general public who are not editors or administrators or who do not participate in editing, Wikipedia is seen as a neutral, independent source of fact. Sure, there are certain areas that need improvement, but once the wider Wikipedia community is brought in, as they have now been, thanks to your highlighting of the problems with Alan Cabal, calm & common sense tend to prevail. I disagree with your statement
"One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV"
because I believe *generally* there is a NPOV, with problems arising in certain instances.
On 09/04/2009 04:54, Bill Carter wrote:
One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV. Wikipedia administrator David Gerard recently wrote on this mailing list, "NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." In fact, Wikipedia is a battleground in which the opinions of the most competitive group win out, rather than some theoretical neutral POV. Many of you are far more knowledgeable about the POV pushers at Wikipedia and know exactly how patently false the NPOV doctrine is.
A Wikipedia article was recently written about Alan Cabal that, in my opinion, met Wikipedia's notability standards beyond a doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_articl...). It was speedy deleted on March 30th, 2009 within hours of being re-created. A deletion review followed which was conducted like a 4th AfD and the outcome was that the speedy delete was upheld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30). Throughout there was talk of keeping one's personal views to oneself. Completely ridiculous considering user Bali ultimate, who nominated the Alan Cabal article for speedy deletion, later admitted that he had been watching its rewrite very closely for weeks and that's why he had pounced! Immediately afterward I looked into David Gerard's aphorism and, looking far back, found that he had said the same thing years ago on another Wikipedia mailing list: "I think NPOV is our greatest innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2007-August/029947.html)
Now there is an ongoing discussion in the CounterPunch article about how mere mentions of Alan Cabal are being expunged from the entire website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Expunging_Alan_Cable_.28Alan_...). The CounterPunch article already has a sordid history. For example, on January 28th, 2009, user Jarjam copyedited the CounterPunch article to say, "CounterPunch has also been criticized for publishing articles by authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have defended the pro-Hitler persepective of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. Zundel is the author of 'The Hitle We Loved and Why'."(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=267015135&am...). Nearly two months later this "unsourced libellous claim of contributors being pro-Hitler" was removed by user Rd232, on March 22nd 2009 to be exact (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=278994805&am...). Instead of getting it right, Alan Cabal's article "Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel" was simply left out of the article and then on April 5th, 2009, user Verbal removed the last mention of Alan Cabal that remained in the CounterPunch article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=281912735&am...). David Gerard truly believes there is a NPOV on this website, and has even defended his ownership over his future Barlett quotation: "Mostly I'm the person I know of calling it Wikipedia's greatest innovation ;-p much more so than merely letting anyone edit the website. Are there others?" (June 2008, David Gerard, http://infoholics-anonymous.blogspot.com/2008/06/changing-world-via-wikipedi...)
Such a thorough job has been done this past week of wiping Wikipedia clean of any mention of Alan Cabal that even the Wikipedia article for New York Press no longer lists him as a former contributor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=281915790&...). David Gerard so firmly believes that Wikipedia has a NPOV that he can be found repeating again and again, "Wikipedia’s fundamental content policy of Neutral Point of View is, in my opinion, its greatest innovation - far greater than merely letting anyone edit the website." ( September 2007, David Gerard) (http://ivo.co.za/2007/09/20/wikipedia-as-efficient-market/) On his blog: "I consider the Neutral Point Of View policy our most important innovation, far more so than letting anyone edit the site." (http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/12/17/rorschach-knols/) (December 2007, David Gerard).
Probably the reason Alan Cabal has been viciously persecuted by Wikipedians for over a year now is because he has defended the freedom of speech of holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. But then again Alan Cabal has written so many controversial articles over the years that I guess Wikipedians could have many reasons for suppressing his biography and work. For the last time, I leave you with another permutation of what is surely David Gerard's greatest quote: "NPOV is Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than letting any idiot edit the website." (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/92817)
Sincerely, Bill Carter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted.
Bill, you stated that "One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV".But nobody's said that in any of your cites. What people have said is, it is a goal of all articles, and a non-negotiable expectation that articles and their authors should aim towards for an article. Nobody's said it has actually been reached for many/most articles. All your "David Gerard" quotes - none show him saying that it exists for most articles, rather they show him saying that it is an important innovation of the project to explicitly identify NPOV as an ideal goal and top priority, at a project content level.
Whether anyone personally believes NPOV is a "good idea" or not (or a foolish idealists dream) there is in fact no conflict between a statement that some person sees it as a very significant stance/innovation or that the project's community has identified it as a major priority, and despite this, achieving it is often elusive and many/most articles haven't yet done so.
You then claim that "Many of you... know exactly how patently false the NPOV /doctrine/ is" without actually substantiating that statement at all. The NPOV /doctrine/ is that:
- All significant views on a topic that can be sourced to reliable sources, should, in an ideal article, be represented in a balanced manner. - That while articles may take a long time to get there,the long term goal over time is to gradually see articles reducing a biased viewpoint in favor of a neutral one.
That is the "NPOV doctrine", put simply. It doesn't seem "false" or falsifiable, because it doesn't say how Wikipedia is edited, but how it /should be/ edited. So the bare statement that "many know" that these two statements are "patently false" seems in the cold light of day, ridiculously unsupported by your post, which doesn't attempt to disprove these two points at all, but attempts to show simply, they haven't been achieved yet (which nobody's disputing anyway).
Brilliant, Sherlock.
By contrast, David Gerard's actual point (which one may agree with or not) in all the quotes you cite, seems to simply be that, in his view, an explicit statement and goal to this effect is an important innovation for an encyclopedia to explicitly and publicly have stated as its core editorial policy.
Sloppy logic, rhetorical post.
FT2
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Bill Carter billdeancarter@yahoo.comwrote:
One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV. Wikipedia administrator David Gerard recently wrote on this mailing list, "NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." In fact, Wikipedia is a battleground in which the opinions of the most competitive group win out, rather than some theoretical neutral POV. Many of you are far more knowledgeable about the POV pushers at Wikipedia and know exactly how patently false the NPOV doctrine is.
A Wikipedia article was recently written about Alan Cabal that, in my opinion, met Wikipedia's notability standards beyond a doubt ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_articl...). It was speedy deleted on March 30th, 2009 within hours of being re-created. A deletion review followed which was conducted like a 4th AfD and the outcome was that the speedy delete was upheld ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30). Throughout there was talk of keeping one's personal views to oneself. Completely ridiculous considering user Bali ultimate, who nominated the Alan Cabal article for speedy deletion, later admitted that he had been watching its rewrite very closely for weeks and that's why he had pounced! Immediately afterward I looked into David Gerard's aphorism and, looking far back, found that he had said the same thing years ago on another Wikipedia mailing list: "I think NPOV is our greatest innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2007-August/029947.html)
Now there is an ongoing discussion in the CounterPunch article about how mere mentions of Alan Cabal are being expunged from the entire website ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Expunging_Alan_Cable_.28Alan_...). The CounterPunch article already has a sordid history. For example, on January 28th, 2009, user Jarjam copyedited the CounterPunch article to say, "CounterPunch has also been criticized for publishing articles by authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have defended the pro-Hitler persepective of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. Zundel is the author of 'The Hitle We Loved and Why'."( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=267015135&am...). Nearly two months later this "unsourced libellous claim of contributors being pro-Hitler" was removed by user Rd232, on March 22nd 2009 to be exact ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=278994805&am...). Instead of getting it right, Alan Cabal's article "Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel" was simply left out of the article and then on April 5th, 2009, user Verbal removed the last mention of Alan Cabal that remained in the CounterPunch article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=281912735&am...). David Gerard truly believes there is a NPOV on this website, and has even defended his ownership over his future Barlett quotation: "Mostly I'm the person I know of calling it Wikipedia's greatest innovation ;-p much more so than merely letting anyone edit the website. Are there others?" (June 2008, David Gerard, http://infoholics-anonymous.blogspot.com/2008/06/changing-world-via-wikipedi... )
Such a thorough job has been done this past week of wiping Wikipedia clean of any mention of Alan Cabal that even the Wikipedia article for New York Press no longer lists him as a former contributor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=281915790&...). David Gerard so firmly believes that Wikipedia has a NPOV that he can be found repeating again and again, "Wikipedia’s fundamental content policy of Neutral Point of View is, in my opinion, its greatest innovation - far greater than merely letting anyone edit the website." ( September 2007, David Gerard) ( http://ivo.co.za/2007/09/20/wikipedia-as-efficient-market/) On his blog: "I consider the Neutral Point Of View policy our most important innovation, far more so than letting anyone edit the site." ( http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/12/17/rorschach-knols/) (December 2007, David Gerard).
Probably the reason Alan Cabal has been viciously persecuted by Wikipedians for over a year now is because he has defended the freedom of speech of holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. But then again Alan Cabal has written so many controversial articles over the years that I guess Wikipedians could have many reasons for suppressing his biography and work. For the last time, I leave you with another permutation of what is surely David Gerard's greatest quote: "NPOV is Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than letting any idiot edit the website." ( http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/92817 )
Sincerely, Bill Carter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/4/9 FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com:
This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted.
This is a much better reply than I could have bothered writing.
- d.
Hi David Gerard: I suggest you take a personal interest in the Alan Cabal article and see that NPOV is upheld:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_articl...
Bill
________________________________ From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 8:03:40 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
2009/4/9 FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com:
This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted.
This is a much better reply than I could have bothered writing.
- 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
FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea.
________________________________ From: FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted.
<snip>
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Bill Carter billdeancarter@yahoo.com wrote:
FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea.
No-one claims we have achieved NPOV. Indeed, most everyone would think that, ultimately, it is unattainable. It is a goal and a guiding principle.
Bill-I'm sure there are some examples as you have shown of articles gone wrong, but I'm sure that these are in the minority. As far as I've found it, Wikipedia has been a generally neutral & reliable source, with the odd exceptions.
Tris
On 09/04/2009 14:24, Bill Carter wrote:
FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea.
From: FT2ft2.wiki@gmail.com To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted.
<snip>
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Tris: You're not insane, are you?
Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article.
________________________________ From: Tris Thomas Tris@waterhay.co.uk To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:28:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
Bill-I'm sure there are some examples as you have shown of articles gone wrong, but I'm sure that these are in the minority. As far as I've found it, Wikipedia has been a generally neutral & reliable source, with the odd exceptions.
Tris
On 09/04/2009 14:24, Bill Carter wrote:
FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea.
From: FT2ft2.wiki@gmail.com To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted.
<snip>
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Um, don't think so!
Again, this is an isolated example. There may be many articles like this, but overall they will be a tiny percentage of the total articles in Wikipedia. NPOV has by no means been achieved throughout Wikipedia, as said before it's a goal & many articles are neutral & reliable.
On 09/04/2009 14:33, Bill Carter wrote:
Tris: You're not insane, are you?
Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article.
From: Tris ThomasTris@waterhay.co.uk To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:28:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
Bill-I'm sure there are some examples as you have shown of articles gone wrong, but I'm sure that these are in the minority. As far as I've found it, Wikipedia has been a generally neutral& reliable source, with the odd exceptions.
Tris
On 09/04/2009 14:24, Bill Carter wrote:
FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea.
From: FT2ft2.wiki@gmail.com To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted.
<snip>
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Bill Carter billdeancarter@yahoo.com wrote:
Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article.
It has been delinked, not removed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=282741269&...
Carcharoth
Now how about restoring the NPOV article about the man?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_articl...
________________________________ From: Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:43:36 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Bill Carter billdeancarter@yahoo.com wrote:
Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article.
It has been delinked, not removed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=282741269&...
Carcharoth
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bill, as far as I can tell, with very limited knowledge on the subject, he seems notable enough. I am happy to support the article being put on & will support that if it does. I've added a little comment to the talk page on it to consider.
Cheers
On 09/04/2009 14:45, Bill Carter wrote:
Now how about restoring the NPOV article about the man?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_articl...
From: Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com To: English Wikipediawikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:43:36 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Bill Carterbilldeancarter@yahoo.com wrote:
Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article.
It has been delinked, not removed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=282741269&...
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bill, It's not any good to make blanket statements about Wikipedia based on one article in your experience. This is what a lot of journalists do when writing about Wikipedia, and then proceed to lambast/praise/poo-poo or whatever based on that single experience. That is what it looks to me like you are doing.
I'm sure there are a good number of article that have "been maligned over and over again". But then, I am certain there are literally millions of articles that are great, and that have no problem with them (in that regard, anyway). As people have said, articles like the Cabal one are in a minority.
Noble Story
________________________________ From: Bill Carter billdeancarter@yahoo.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:24:34 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea.
________________________________ From: FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted.
<snip>
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
These single article experiences sure seem to crop up often, huh? Anyhow, I'm talking about many articles involving one subject: journalist Alan Cabal.
________________________________ From: Mark Nilrad marknilrad@yahoo.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 10:10:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
Bill, It's not any good to make blanket statements about Wikipedia based on one article in your experience. This is what a lot of journalists do when writing about Wikipedia, and then proceed to lambast/praise/poo-poo or whatever based on that single experience. That is what it looks to me like you are doing.
I'm sure there are a good number of article that have "been maligned over and over again". But then, I am certain there are literally millions of articles that are great, and that have no problem with them (in that regard, anyway). As people have said, articles like the Cabal one are in a minority.
Noble Story
________________________________ From: Bill Carter billdeancarter@yahoo.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:24:34 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea.
________________________________ From: FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted.
<snip>
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Bill Carter billdeancarter@yahoo.com wrote:
These single article experiences sure seem to crop up often, huh? Anyhow, I'm talking about many articles involving one subject: journalist Alan Cabal.
It still proves absolutely nothing. Lets say this issue had "cropped up", as you say, one thousand times. In terms of the things we talk about on this mailing-list, that would be staggering, we wouldn't be talking about anything else!
But wikipedia has around 2.8 million articles. A thousand articles are a lot, but it's only 0.03% of the total. Looking at it from that perspective, 99.97% can achieve some sort of NPOV, which is an absolutely incredible result.
My point isn't that 99.97% of wikipedia articles don't have NPOV problems (I have no idea what the number is, but I reckon it's high), my point is that ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Saying "article X has NPOV problems, therefore NPOV is a stupid and unattainable policy" is an absurd argument, and if you argue that way no one is going to take you seriously.
--Oskar
I agree with the below.
And I'd also like to point out that NPOV is self-evidently *NOT* a big lie; nor even a noble lie, maybe it's a white lie or an exaggeration at the very worst. ;-)
2009/4/10 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Bill Carter billdeancarter@yahoo.com wrote:
These single article experiences sure seem to crop up often, huh? Anyhow,
I'm talking about many articles involving one subject: journalist Alan Cabal.
It still proves absolutely nothing. Lets say this issue had "cropped up", as you say, one thousand times. In terms of the things we talk about on this mailing-list, that would be staggering, we wouldn't be talking about anything else!
But wikipedia has around 2.8 million articles. A thousand articles are a lot, but it's only 0.03% of the total. Looking at it from that perspective, 99.97% can achieve some sort of NPOV, which is an absolutely incredible result.
My point isn't that 99.97% of wikipedia articles don't have NPOV problems (I have no idea what the number is, but I reckon it's high), my point is that ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Saying "article X has NPOV problems, therefore NPOV is a stupid and unattainable policy" is an absurd argument, and if you argue that way no one is going to take you seriously.
--Oskar
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Bill Carter billdeancarter@yahoo.comwrote:
(Snip) I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again.
Actually much of your post was mis-targeted rhetoric on NPOV. I counted 6 times you quoted David Gerard saying the same point (which is dissected above).You did discuss Alan Cabal... yet each time it seemed the format was this:
"Alan Cabal is horribly treated <cite>, and so here's /another/ quote of David Gerard saying he sees NPOV as a major innovation of Wikipedia".
One could be forgiven for believing your post wasn't really about Alan at all.
FT2
Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea.
From: FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted.
<snip>
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ye gods. "Propaganda ministry"? I was giving you due respect and reading you carefully until you spouted this nonsense.
Bill Carter wrote:
FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people come forward will we get a good idea.
From: FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a mistake to be retracted when spotted.
<snip>
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----Original Message----- From: KillerChihuahua puppy@KillerChihuahua.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 7:11 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
Ye gods. "Propaganda ministry"? I was giving you due respect and reading you carefully until you spouted this nonsense.>> -----------------
It's a great place to work until they declare that you are "Obsolete"
http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/all-twilight-zone-episodes/4hmquk6fx4g...
Will