In a message dated 4/2/2006 1:32:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time, guettarda@gmail.com writes:
The essence of NPOV is to be able to "write for your enemies". It's a great (and somewhat humbling) experience to write fairly about something you disagree with or someone you dislike.
Sounds good, but what if the writing is not fair? How does the NPOV handle that? What if the writing is contradictory data, and the admin says on entry (A) that it belongs on entry (B) and on entry (B) he says it belongs on (A)? Is that what you call Neutral
callNeutral writing?
And what about when contradictory evidence is mentioned, and the admin simply reverts it out with the comment "That does not explain why..." And what if he comes over from his home entry, and adds to his enemies page "This theory has been widely discredited by most cosmologists." And then starts an argument over the meaning of the word cosmologist...And what if when he is in a dispute, he closes the discussion with a claim of disruption, incompetence, silly, said that the one expert editing has "questionable credentials, " and when his edits get reverted, he threatens to ban the one editor who has done most of the work citing vandalism or some other Wikipolicy violation. And when evidence of this behavoir is copied over to the discussion page, His friend deletes it. And when I suggest that in the real world that action would constitute obstruction of justice, I am arrested for making a legal threat and banned from Wikipedia without a hearing.
Is that an example of your Wiki NPOV?
tm
Thommandel@aol.com wrote
Sounds good, but what if the writing is not fair? How does the NPOV handle that? What if the writing is contradictory data, and the admin says on entry (A) that it belongs on entry (B) and on entry (B) he says it belongs on (A)? Is that what you call Neutral
You seem to be fencing around a particular situation which concerns you. Why not just say what it is? Not everything goes perfectly on Wikipedia, and if there is a problem, you will not be given a hard time just for mentioning where it is.
Charles
Take a look at our page on [[WP:NPOV]]. If you are trying to come up with a formulation or even an agreement that people should be excluded from editing certain topics based on "ethical" considerations you will not find one on this list or on our policy pages. Wikipedia's neutrality policy does not care whether one agrees or disagrees with a topic ahead of time; it concerns only the actual content written. If something does not meet NPOV, there are methods for looking for second opinions and getting things changed. But there is no "ethical" issue here, nothing that can a priori get you around the NPOV policy based on pre-held opinions or anything like that.
Obviously NPOV is a hard thing to reach and people disagree all the time on its implementation -- that's just how things work on here. It sounds to me like you are just disagreeing with an implementation of NPOV. Try to work it out with the editor(s) in question; if you still feel you want a second opinion you can try listing an article Request for Comments ([[WP:RFC]]). But there's no way you are going to get permission to trump the opinions of other editors in all situations, no matter how you vaguely describe it on here.
FF
On 4/2/06, Thommandel@aol.com Thommandel@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/2/2006 1:32:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time, guettarda@gmail.com writes:
The essence of NPOV is to be able to "write for your enemies". It's a great (and somewhat humbling) experience to write fairly about something you disagree with or someone you dislike.
Sounds good, but what if the writing is not fair? How does the NPOV handle that? What if the writing is contradictory data, and the admin says on entry (A) that it belongs on entry (B) and on entry (B) he says it belongs on (A)? Is that what you call Neutral callNeutral writing?
And what about when contradictory evidence is mentioned, and the admin simply reverts it out with the comment "That does not explain why..." And what if he comes over from his home entry, and adds to his enemies page "This theory has been widely discredited by most cosmologists." And then starts an argument over the meaning of the word cosmologist...And what if when he is in a dispute, he closes the discussion with a claim of disruption, incompetence, silly, said that the one expert editing has "questionable credentials, " and when his edits get reverted, he threatens to ban the one editor who has done most of the work citing vandalism or some other Wikipolicy violation. And when evidence of this behavoir is copied over to the discussion page, His friend deletes it. And when I suggest that in the real world that action would constitute obstruction of justice, I am arrested for making a legal threat and banned from Wikipedia without a hearing.
Is that an example of your Wiki NPOV?
tm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l