see below:
On 8 Aug 2004, at 05:21, fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Message: 8 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 09:33:06 +1000 From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au Subject: [WikiEN-l] Nationalist POV-pushing on Wikpedia: what to do? (was Azerbaijan and Iran related articles) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 20040807233306.GA18928@thingy.apana.org.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
S.Vertigo (sewev@yahoo.com) [040808 05:43]:
How about just protecting them, use a very condensed version of the {{protected}} banner, (its just too much text and graphics people) and make people work on a proxy draft instead?
Hasn't worked - the anons don't talk, they just revert. Protecting one page for a month did nothing - they just came back when it was unprotected and started over.
Nationalist POV pushing is becoming a real problem on Wikipedia. Particularly in cases where it appears semi-official, as with these cases and with User:Levzur on Georgia-related articles. I suspect a series of AC rulings as we go isn't really the best way to approach the problem. What can we do abouthis sort of thing? Gdansk/Danzig is just the tip of it.
- d.
I'm going to say something EXTREMELY unpopular -- because _it needs to be kept in mind_ in this context: (and no, I'm not trying to have a go at anybody with this)
IMHO nationalist POV has been a problem on Wikipedia for a LOOONG time: U.S. nationalist POV, that is.
Examples? I'll give you an example: I've seen an article where it was disputed that the warfare use of napalm constituted chemical warfare, and where the caption to a famous picture showing the consequences of a U.S. napalm attack was changed -- the contributor simply disputed whether the U.S. had been responsible for the Vietnam napalm attack. Later _the same contributors_ suddenly discovered that there were copyright issues with the use of the picture... (See my previous email to AP I cc'd you on.)
But of course: It would have been a "Vietcong" trick, right? Bomb their own, have a photo shot, discredit the poor battered U.S. internationally... Yeez... I could not possibly make up a better real world example of George Orwell's [[Doublethink]] (of 1984, see WP article). Really folks, I do rarely, in this day and age, ever see people whose moral compasses and standards of truthfulness are so *seriously* out of whack as a certain group of U.S. "patriots".
I do _not_ dispute that there are _big_ problems as regards non-U.S. nationalist POV -- and I don't have a magical solution to that. But I also seem to remember some story about a chip and a beam, respectively... in some person's eyes...
What I'm trying to say is that, _especially_ with the inherent pro-U.S. slant that's simply due to the large number of U.S. WP contributors, it's IMPOSSIBLE for "the rest of us" to go it alone in trying to balance things out. Given the said slant, I would like to appeal that seriously minded U.S. NPOVers _help wherever they can_ and -- keeping the above in mind -- always seek to apply _more_ restraint and a _stricter_ standard whenever there is a possible U.S. side to an issue. It's probably the only way we're going to get a lid on U.S. nationalist POV.
And, yes, I too believe that it's utterly fruitless to start a discussion on which country's contributors have the worst nationalist POV offenders among them. But it can't hurt to keep the above in mind, can it?
Thanks and regards, Jens Ropers
There are two types of IT techs: The ones who watch soap operas and the ones who watch progress bars. http://www.ropersonline.com/elmo/#108681741955837683
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
I'm going to say something EXTREMELY unpopular... U.S. nationalist POV, that is.
How "EXTREMELY" unpopular can what youve got to say be, (??) when your dealing with only 6% of the world's population? :)
I've seen an article where it was disputed that the warfare use of napalm constituted chemical warfare, and where the caption to a famous picture showing the consequences of a U.S. napalm attack was changed -- the contributor simply disputed whether the U.S. had been responsible for the Vietnam napalm attack.
Sorry, that particular war is not open for discussion until the year 2030, or else after 99.7 percent of the 'baby boom' generation has passed on, whichever is longer. You are free to discuss *other wars, and any related photographs all you want. Myself I'm hot on the trail of some silver gelatin prints of the American Revolutionary War.
S
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On 08/08/04 14:37, Jens Ropers wrote:
IMHO nationalist POV has been a problem on Wikipedia for a LOOONG time: U.S. nationalist POV, that is. Examples? I'll give you an example: I've seen an article where it was disputed that the warfare use of napalm constituted chemical warfare, and where the caption to a famous picture showing the consequences of a U.S. napalm attack was changed -- the contributor simply disputed whether the U.S. had been responsible for the Vietnam napalm attack. Later _the same contributors_ suddenly discovered that there were copyright issues with the use of the picture... (See my previous email to AP I cc'd you on.) But of course: It would have been a "Vietcong" trick, right? Bomb their own, have a photo shot, discredit the poor battered U.S. internationally... Yeez... I could not possibly make up a better real world example of George Orwell's [[Doublethink]] (of 1984, see WP article). Really folks, I do rarely, in this day and age, ever see people whose moral compasses and standards of truthfulness are so *seriously* out of whack as a certain group of U.S. "patriots".
Heh. You do realise I'm not American? (Australian living in London.)
- d.
Yawn. Typical usual boring anti-American rant. Get over it.
RickK
Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote: IMHO nationalist POV has been a problem on Wikipedia for a LOOONG time: U.S. nationalist POV, that is.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Typical irrational response to rational points of criticism. By labeling such argument as anti-American you simply make the term obsolete or it even becomes a good thing, a moral obligation.
It's very similar to when people are labeled anti-Semites for acting on their concern for the human rights of Palestinians. "Anti-Semitism" then becomes a moral obligation. The term starts to have no meaning.
Christiaan
On 8 Aug 2004, at 8:24 pm, Rick wrote:
Yawn. Typical usual boring anti-American rant. Get over it. RickK
Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote: IMHO nationalist POV has been a problem on Wikipedia for a LOOONG time: U.S. nationalist POV, that is.
On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 14:37:15 UTC, Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
IMHO nationalist POV has been a problem on Wikipedia for a LOOONG time: U.S. nationalist POV, that is. ...[snip fine example of malicious idiocy from a US source] ... Really folks, I do rarely, in this day and age, ever see people whose moral compasses and standards of truthfulness are so *seriously* out of whack as a certain group of U.S. "patriots".
Really? You don't follow the various Middle East discussions much, do you?
...
What I'm trying to say is that, _especially_ with the inherent pro-U.S. slant that's simply due to the large number of U.S. WP contributors, it's IMPOSSIBLE for "the rest of us" to go it alone in trying to balance things out. Given the said slant, I would like to appeal that seriously minded U.S. NPOVers _help wherever they can_ and -- keeping the above in mind -- always seek to apply _more_ restraint and a _stricter_ standard whenever there is a possible U.S. side to an issue. It's probably the only way we're going to get a lid on U.S. nationalist POV.
This, though, I have to consider a wee bit presumptuous. This particular list is infested with Americans, and I'm not sure I can even exhaust the fingers of one hand in counting all those who are notably "conservative" in the US sense, let alone rabid right-wing nationalists. The first one I think of is no rabid nationalist, but a peace-maker. As for the hot-headed American who dismissed the above posting as another anti-American rant: he contibuted, as apparently his most recent political posting, a reply to some rabid nationalist loony concerning Michael Moore. Perhaps what we really need is that all of us who reply to American loonies (which I admit I don't often do because my main WP interests are outside the polical-rants subjects) need to sign everything with "(US citizen)". Would that help the perception problem?