At 02:42 PM 4/4/02 -0800, Jimbo wrote:
I don't think that 24 really understands the NPOV
policy. 24 writes:
"It remains to be see if people here wish to find the actual median of
global human opinion." And also: "There are 6100 million potential
readers of the wikipedia, long term, and views shared near-universally
by 100-300 million of them just aren't good enough to qualify as
neutral point of view, if there is serious dispute about them among
the other 5800-6000 million people."
But NPOV is not about finding the 'median' of human opinion, nor about
presenting only views that are "shared near-universally" by only
Western, technologically advanced, American, or whatever other group
he means.
The examples he gives of things that we wouldn't even want to have in
the encyclopedia betray his misunderstanding. Selecting just one of
them, "hate views of ethnic groups" is certainly something that
Wikipedia should have an article on. But the wikipedia should take no
position "for" or "against" those views, but should instead present
those views in such a way that both proponents and detractors can
mutually agree.
Similarly, imagine that 24's hypothetical poll of the entire world
shows that most beleive that "9/11 was caused by US foreign policy" --
what should the wikipedia say about that? Well, nothing less than
that a poll of the entire world showed that a majority of the world
believes that "9/11 was caused by US foreign policy". Hopefully our
reporting on this fact would be enhanced by an NPOV discussion of the
reasons why many people believe that, an NPOV discussion of what
Americans believe, and why, and so on.
His threat to post to
indymedia.org to bring an onslaught of
progressives is interesting and revealing, as well. Brion Vibber's
response was correct: please do, go and bring them in. If lots of
them come all at once, there will be a period of chaos while they come
to understand our NPOV policies, but after that, those who can
tolerate NPOV writing will stick around, and that'll be great. It'll
help keep those of us who do not share their viewpoints "in line".
Seconded. Heartily. By possibly the leftmost person on this mailing
list. NPOV is about spreading and sharing information, and about
distinguishing information from opinion. This is a Good Thing, in my own
not-so-humble opinion: oppressors of any stripe want to control information,
ideas, and knowledge.
But if his
indymedia.org friends want to violate the
NPOV, then they
will be just as unwelcome as, say, libertarians who come in and want
to violate the NPOV. Even such "stupid" followers of Ayn Rand, as
your humble host would be held to the fire just as heartily for NPOV
violations.
Exactly. Which is why this works, why you and I can agree to work on
this project, and improve it and make something valuable. We don't have
to agree on other things--and it's possible that Wikipedia is the only
thing other than the English language that we have in common.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org