Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote
If we excluded people on the basis of potential conflict of interest we would have no encyclopaedia, but in my experience, David presses the point long and hard, and that is precisely the point Alphax was making, I think.
Well, take care you aren't going over the edge on the other issue I mentioned.
Specifically in relation to politics, and particularly in the matter of identifying 'political positions', I think there is a basic style point anyway. For any close follower of politics there may be an excessive interest in 'pinning the tail on the donkey': locating politicians on a spectrum, getting the ducks in a row as to exactly where they stand. When I talk about 'understatement', I think there are a number of stylistic points that ought to differentiate WP's coverage from that of someone very interested in partisan politics (from any angle). Something like this:
(a) Obviously membership of intra-party groups is OK to mention (if verifiable); (b) Obviously labelling someone a Marxist, Eurosceptic, racist, whatever is not acceptable except as self-identification, or in the context of controversy that we should include and can support with sources; (c) I notice plenty of 'epithetting' going on, with attempts to place labels like 'far right' on people next to a wikilink (rather than in the article itself); this is really not good, but is the kind of style people adopt either because they are imitating print journalism, or because they are a bit too interested in extremism; (d) Closer to the Anne Milton thing: presumably anyone active in politics has some sort of 'portfolio' of positions one could research. What gets included and how does it get treated? I don't know, as an abstract question; US politicians in Congress tend to have their voting records recorded, but UK politics coverage usually doesn't focus on that. I do think that principles from the 'living persons biography' criteria can be applied, within reason. Basically there are things about a politician that are fairly 'salient', and should be included if verifiable. If other matters are raised in an article, one should wonder why they are there.
I don't suppose this will resolve the particular dispute, but it seems an interesting area to look into, in general terms.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:25:49 +0000, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
If we excluded people on the basis of potential conflict of interest we would have no encyclopaedia, but in my experience, David presses the point long and hard, and that is precisely the point Alphax was making, I think.
Well, take care you aren't going over the edge on the other issue I mentioned.
I'm trying not to. David does not make that easy...
-----8<--------------
(a) Obviously membership of intra-party groups is OK to mention (if verifiable); (b) Obviously labelling someone a Marxist, Eurosceptic, racist, whatever is not acceptable except as self-identification, or in the context of controversy that we should include and can support with sources; (c) I notice plenty of 'epithetting' going on, with attempts to place labels like 'far right' on people next to a wikilink (rather than in the article itself); this is really not good, but is the kind of style people adopt either because they are imitating print journalism, or because they are a bit too interested in extremism; (d) Closer to the Anne Milton thing: presumably anyone active in politics has some sort of 'portfolio' of positions one could research. What gets included and how does it get treated? I don't know, as an abstract question; US politicians in Congress tend to have their voting records recorded, but UK politics coverage usually doesn't focus on that. I do think that principles from the 'living persons biography' criteria can be applied, within reason. Basically there are things about a politician that are fairly 'salient', and should be included if verifiable. If other matters are raised in an article, one should wonder why they are there.
I agree with all of the above. And I certainly don't think membership of or activism for a political party are disqualifying factors, just that one must be aware of one's own biases and prepared to step back if they may be relevant.
What I believe is that if one has a potential conflict of interest then (a) it should be declared and (b) one should be prepared to leave the last word to others. Is an active member of the opposing political party likely to be ''perceived by readers'' as the best arbiter of inclusion of negative content? No more so than the subject themselves I would say.
What I perceive here is a difference between "The Times covered this little morsel during the election" and "Look what Tim Ireland says! See, even The Times covered it!"
Moreover, Ireland's criticisms of Milton do not seem to have done her any harm politically, and are therefore not in the same league as, say the Salter camp's machinations against Jane Griffiths and the effect that had on the candidacy of Tony Page (whose losing margin was tiny despite his convictions for gross indecency). Where is the evidence that Ireland has had any significant effect on Milton's reputation or public perception?
Guy (JzG)