Viajero wrote:
Several of us were discussing the topic on the IRC channel in December (Anthere may remember this because she was one of them) and this question came up. One person said they thought WP (EN) had a pro-Israeli bias. Another said a pro-Palestinian bias. A third said neither POV was accurately represented.
I haven't seen Rashomon, but I understand the reference: three or more people saw the same event and give widely divergent accounts of it. I think this cuts to the core of the difficulty in describing Middle East history and current events.
Who among us can see without using a mental filter? I do not claim this ability. Despite my high estimate of my own objectivity, I am uncomfortably aware that from time to time I am simply WRONG.
I daresay portions of articles are indeed tinged (or infected) with pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian bias. We might never eliminate either of these biases entirely. But we can work at it.
The key is identification: if it smells, change it. Refactor the article so that it says the same thing but /attributes/ POV to its proponent. I don't know why this is so hard, but (A) it really is hard and (B) it really is important.
Let's do it.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Viajero wrote:
Several of us were discussing the topic on the IRC channel in December (Anthere may remember this because she was one of them) and this question came up. One person said they thought WP (EN) had a pro-Israeli bias. Another said a pro-Palestinian bias. A third said neither POV was accurately represented.
In my experience bias is not the most serious problem in the ME pages, it is ignorance. People think they know something about the subject because they have some infantile propaganda tract (or a collection of infantile web sites) and insist on copying it into WP. Of course this is related to bias, but on the other hand there have been people in WP with strong political opinions who are nevertheless valuable contributors on account of the depth of their knowledge.
Two knowledgable people with opposing biases can generally write a good article even if the road is rocky. No number of ignoramuses can write a good article regardless of their biases.
One of the surest marks of a problem editor is that they insist on filling up articles with "quotations". I plan to write more on this in the near future.
Zero.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
On 01/14/04 at 05:18 AM, zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com said:
One of the surest marks of a problem editor is that they insist on filling up articles with "quotations".
This reminds me of a comment Adam Carr made on [[Talk:Zionism]]:
I have written a new paragraph which avoids this stupid war of quotations. An encyclopaedia article is supposed to be a work of synthesis, not a collection of undigested primary source materials. Adam 02:40, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I thought this was very insightful. Indeed, many articles include such "quote wars" (like [[Norman Finkelstein]]) and they look ridiculous.
V.
zero 0000 a écrit:
Viajero wrote:
Several of us were discussing the topic on the IRC channel in December (Anthere may remember this because she was one of them) and this question came up. One person said they thought WP (EN) had a pro-Israeli bias. Another said a pro-Palestinian bias. A third said neither POV was accurately represented.
In my experience bias is not the most serious problem in the ME pages, it is ignorance. People think they know something about the subject because they have some infantile propaganda tract (or a collection of infantile web sites) and insist on copying it into WP.
I would like to mention here that I have *never* written anything about these topics :-)