Eileen wrote:
I was laboring under the false impression that the purpose of Wikipedia was to present factual information in an encyclopedic form. The answer I received from Delerium/Mark makes it abundantly clear that I was mistaken in this evaluation.
And
I will retain the answers I have received to this query as background and support of my position and will simply refuse in the future to accept any citation from Wikipedia as a reference to a legitimate authority but will put it in the same class as a letter to the editor in a small local newspaper.
This is precisely the sort of misunderstanding I was hoping would be averted, if we could convey our neutrality policy properly.
Unfortunately, after a brief encounter with the mailing list, a person who may have considerable influence among readers has now dismissed this project as having any standing as a useful reference.
What are everyone's thoughts on Eileen's evaluation of our editorial policy on articles relating to abortion?
Ed Poor
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
What are everyone's thoughts on Eileen's evaluation of our editorial policy on articles relating to abortion?
The result is exactly the same as what I expect would happen were someone virulently "pro-life" (or "anti-choice" if you prefer) to write to complain to us that our use of sanitized medical terminology is "whitewashing babykilling" and that we should change our articles accordingly. There's really no way to satisfy someone who would like to foist a particular point of view on a controversial issue like this.
I'd imagine we'll get the same problems if someone (professor or otherwise, from either side) writes in wanting us to change our editorial policy on the Israeli vs. Palestinian issue.
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_standards_kick may also be relevant.
-Mark
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Unfortunately, after a brief encounter with the mailing list, a person who may have considerable influence among readers has now dismissed this project as having any standing as a useful reference.
What are everyone's thoughts on Eileen's evaluation of our editorial policy on articles relating to abortion?
She sounds like an activist who will interpret anything neutral as taking a position against, and who's lost so much perspective that a single person's statement is taken as the official word. I'm just as happy she's going away, because there's no evidence that she would be able to work cooperatively with anybody who disagrees with any part of her position.
Be not too troubled, because this will happen more and more; a successfully neutral Wikipedia will come in for nonstop calumnies from the partisans.
Stan
Apparently she knows a pissing contest when she sees one...
But surely here in an area a number of us have an interest in, we could make NPOV work.
Fred
This is precisely the sort of misunderstanding I was hoping would be averted, if we could convey our neutrality policy properly.
Unfortunately, after a brief encounter with the mailing list, a person who may have considerable influence among readers has now dismissed this project as having any standing as a useful reference.
What are everyone's thoughts on Eileen's evaluation of our editorial policy on articles relating to abortion?
Ed Poor
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
This is precisely the sort of misunderstanding I was hoping would be averted, if we could convey our neutrality policy properly.
Indeed.
Unfortunately, after a brief encounter with the mailing list, a person who may have considerable influence among readers has now dismissed this project as having any standing as a useful reference.
Well, I think she was really rude to go off like that based on her disagreement with one person's remarks. As it turns out, I think that she's right on the content issue, and that the medical terms are neutral and should be used uniformly in the article.
What are everyone's thoughts on Eileen's evaluation of our editorial policy on articles relating to abortion?
Knee-jerk and not very helpful, that's what I think of her evaluation.
--Jimbo
What are everyone's thoughts on Eileen's evaluation of our editorial policy on articles relating to abortion?
I would suppose that Eileen follows a scientism-based view of abortion and considers it self-evident that a woman has a right to control her body; that abortion is a medical procedure and should receive encyclopedic treatment similar to any other medical matter; and that a fact-based article on abortion would be superior to one grounded more in emotion than science.
I have to imagine that there is somewhere, out there, a pro-life person who could argue just as persuasively that it is self-evident that babies are created at conception and being unable to speak for themselves are deserving of the greatest consideration and protection; that these issues predate the medicalization of childbirth and reproduction and should not be treated merely as a medical matter; and that a fact-based article on abortion would lack compassion and fail to address the personal, social, and human implications of the subject.
We can't win, because each point of view defines the baseline assumptions of the other as being unworthy of consideration or discussion. Therefore, any article that merely includes terminology and ideas from each POV is inherently wrong according to the other.
The armies of activists are coming to promote each agenda. Are we ready?
Louis
Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
I would suppose that Eileen follows a scientism-based view of abortion and considers it self-evident that a woman has a right to control her body; that abortion is a medical procedure and should receive encyclopedic treatment similar to any other medical matter; and that a fact-based article on abortion would be superior to one grounded more in emotion than science.
I have to imagine that there is somewhere, out there, a pro-life person who could argue just as persuasively that it is self-evident that babies are created at conception and being unable to speak for themselves are deserving of the greatest consideration and protection; that these issues predate the medicalization of childbirth and reproduction and should not be treated merely as a medical matter; and that a fact-based article on abortion would lack compassion and fail to address the personal, social, and human implications of the subject.
We can't win, because each point of view defines the baseline assumptions of the other as being unworthy of consideration or discussion.
I hold forth a great deal more hope that we can, in fact, win. While it is of course true that there are some people, a small minority, for whom neutrality itself is offensive, I think that by and large, there is a HUGE group of people who can work together peacefully to present a controversial issue in such a way as to satisfy both sides.
For the two people you have imagined, I would offer the following solution(s) to which I think both could agree:
1. Abortion is an important political issue because some believe in a woman's right to choose abortion, while others believe that it is tantamount to murder.
2. Abortion is a medical procedure, the facts of which are easily describable in medical terms, and an understanding of various methods is important to an understanding of the debate.
3. We need to have clear fact-based articles about not only the medical facts, but also about the personal, social, and human implications of the subject.
The key here is that both side is convinced that they are right, so intelligent proponents of both side can agree to a neutral presentation because they believe that a neutral presentation will naturally lead intelligent readers to come to the right conclusion, their own.
--Jimbo
From: Jimmy Wales
<snip>
- Abortion is an important political issue because some believe in a
woman's right to choose abortion, while others believe that it is tantamount to murder.
[[Politics of abortion]] ... with subsections/subentries on specific political threads, such as Roe v. Wade, "partial-birth", legalization of RU-486, etc.
- Abortion is a medical procedure, the facts of which are easily
describable in medical terms, and an understanding of various methods is important to an understanding of the debate.
[[Abortion methods]] ... with subsections/subentries on surgical, drug-based,
- We need to have clear fact-based articles about not only the
medical facts, but also about the personal, social, and human
and legal
implications of the subject.
[[Legality of abortion]] (separate from politics--legality explains *what* the laws are, politics explains *why*).
I would add
4. The discussions on the medical facts, the personal, social, and human (and religious) implications of the subject need to be made as distinct entries/sections.
It seems that she came into the process with a particular outlook and is upset that Wikipedia does not support her position.
RickK
"Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote: What are everyone's thoughts on Eileen's evaluation of our editorial policy on articles relating to abortion?
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
From: Rick
It seems that she came into the process with a particular outlook and
is upset that Wikipedia does not\
support her position.
Boy, it's sure easy for people to attack her, when her criticism of the articles as poorly muddling medical with moral issues is entirely valid.
You all might try taking the criticism better. For example, pretend that someone whose opinion you respect said
" This is obviously a subject which has been subjected to a great deal of controversy and dare I say propaganda and this has led to a great deal of erroneous information disseminated as fact.
There are a number of major errors in the Wikipedia entry describing the D&X abortion procedure. The most glaring error is the statement that this is a late term abortion. While it might be described as a late abortion, performed around the middle of the pregnancy, it is certainly almost never performed "Late Term" which is the last third of the pregnancy or to be technically correctly after 26.6 weeks. This procedure would usually be impossible to perform that late in the pregnancy.
I also note the use of "birth canal" to describe the vagina as if a woman had an exit chute on her baby factory; and the use of "womb" in place of 'uterus'. Both these terms, and the misstatement of the time the procedure is performed, lead me to believe the article was mainly written by somebody opposed to abortion who was more interested in getting a subtle message out then actually providing honest information. Since we are describing a medical procedure appropriate medical/biological terminology which is well understood by the general population is the appropriate vocabulary.
May I suggest reading this article before using the term "PBA" as loosely as it is used in your current entry. http://womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/499/"
The Cunctator wrote:
Boy, it's sure easy for people to attack her, when her criticism of the articles as poorly muddling medical with moral issues is entirely valid.
If the criticism was directed at the one article, then no problem, but she's going from there to a blanket condemnation of the entire encyclopedia and the people working hard on it. It's insulting to dedicated contributors to suggest that their content is worthless without an anointed editorial board to bless it, and it betrays massive ignorance and an unwillingness to learn. Given that, I'd recommend extra leeriness and doublechecking of all of her assertions - she sounds to me more like a faux expert trying to snow us with haughty attitude and big words. Beware!
Stan
From: Stan Shebs Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:14 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Our credibility is questioned
The Cunctator wrote:
Boy, it's sure easy for people to attack her, when her criticism of
the
articles as poorly muddling medical with moral issues is entirely
valid.
If the criticism was directed at the one article, then no problem, but she's going from there to a blanket condemnation of the entire encyclopedia and the people working hard on it. It's insulting to dedicated contributors to suggest that their content is worthless without an anointed editorial board to bless it, and it betrays massive ignorance and an unwillingness to learn. Given that, I'd recommend extra leeriness and doublechecking of all of
her
assertions - she sounds to me more like a faux expert trying to snow
us
with haughty attitude and big words. Beware!
The defensiveness and the personal attacks are guaranteed not to help anybody.
Guaranteed not to help.
Try again.