In a message dated 4/2/2006 10:05:28 A.M. Central Daylight Time, m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au writes:
G'day Thom,
Is it ethical for a Wiki editor, who is also an admistrator, to edit
both
sides of an issue?
If that editor is a good Wikipedian --- and, being an administrator, we should hope he is --- then it is entirely appropriate for him (or her) to edit any article he (or she) damn well pleases.
What if the editor only thinks he is a good wikipedian, but in reality by what he does, is actually promoting a POV? How is that determined? and where is the line drawn between good editing and POV pushing?
It's called "writing from a netural point-of-view", and some of us pride ourselves on our ability to do just that.
If a reader, a researcher say, accesses the pages of standard and non- standard theories, what kind of "neutrality" is he looking for? If there is a controversy between standard and non-standard, was it good editing to remove that controversy from the Wikientry? Is it "neutral" for an admin editor advocate of the standard theory to write "non-standard theories are widely discredited" on the non-standard theory page?
You might as well ask if it's ethical for me to edit an article about Manchester United FC ...
You are assuming "good Wikipedian" but what about not-good Wikipedian admin/editors? How do you identify them? For example, what sort of evidence would you want if I were to present a case against an aledged wikiadmin pov pusher?
tm
On 4/2/06, Thommandel@aol.com Thommandel@aol.com wrote:
What if the editor only thinks he is a good wikipedian, but inreality by what he does, is actually promoting a POV? How is that determined? and where is the line drawn between good editing and POV pushing?
If someone is making a good faith attempt at NPOV, but are being unsuccessful, then you need to let them know what the problem is with their editing. Do so in a polite, collegial manner, and clearly reference sources and policy.
If a reader, a researcher say, accesses the pages of standard and non- standard theories, what kind of "neutrality" is he looking for? If there is a controversy between standard and non-standard, was it good editing to remove that controversy from the Wikientry? Is it "neutral" for an admin editor advocate of the standard theory to write "non-standard theories are widely discredited" on the non-standard theory page?
It's more than "neutral" to do so, it's necessary. If non-standard theories have been discredited, then the article needs to say so.
You are assuming "good Wikipedian" but what about not-good Wikipedian admin/editors? How do you identify them? For example, what sort of evidence would you want if I were to present a case against an aledged wikiadmin pov pusher?
An article RFC is probably the best way to go in a case like this - get input from other editors