On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:25:49 +0000, <charles.r.matthews(a)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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG