James penned: (edited for length) Certainly potential bias does deserve a centralized and open discussion. Some of that is unavoidable, but we should be careful not to let this discussion (about possible sources of bias in the wikipedia) to turn into a flamewar about what is undoubtably a very emotional and very VERY complex situation.

And 'caution' is warranted - I would of course be cautious to be overly cautious. And even your use of the word 'complex' is complex.

I think that this notion -- that "free discussion" is "censored" in the US is absolutely farcical.

Well, it's really about the marketing of public opinion - to what degree (if any. !) does the Corpculture maintain a homogenized conservative to moderate bandwidth... As far as mass media goes, which feeds the bulk of public opinion, which determines action: If you see it, you believe it, you vote it. Assuming the bias is X, is the degree of X equivlent here on WP... In otherwords does the en:WP represent an international voice, or an excusively Euro-American voice, and were are there obstacles to the former?

And specific allegations of bias against particular news outlets are

undeniably

true.

Well, this too, is generalizing... the accusation itself is in some ways a tool for creating the appearance of bias. Scream anti-this or anti-that loud enough, and there will be some response. The issue is to not just get around the rhetoric, but uproot the rhetoric. All of it - and in its place, fact.

But taken as a whole, there's a very rich and complex debate about all these things. we should be wary of straying into _content_ discussions about what is actually right or wrong in that context.

That there is rich and complex debate is true, but there are issues of sources, and I think with regard to sources, there is a tendency to discredit information from sources that is in any way critical of certain POV. The criticism should of course be based on factual and moral appeals. Countercriticism based on practicalities is mere practicality - and should be characterized as such, and represented plainly.

I am against characterizing all sides as merely POV; There is a heirarchy of POV in my opinion, and that is; the one with more truth in it is superior - The one with more clarity of purpose, the least supression of facts, or intelligent comment: The stronger appeal, based on principle is Superior to a self-interested, [[moral relativist]] pov. Thus, a real definition of 'NPOV,' is the standard I'm talking about.

The flames have been going on for months. The discussion needs to happen so the flames can be put out. If they spread to the mailing list, that is not an excuse for forestalling the discussion and allowing the current bad situation to continue.

John, youre doing a couple things here: 1. using *the rhetoric* again... avoid it. Its not useful. Translating the above: Flame wars are avoidable if there are rules agreed to regarding conduct. There ought not be limits on discourse for fear of causing people to be offended. 2. Youre putting all of this on Jim. Knock that shit off. He may be able to work the server, redirect the Wikipedia URL back to bomis.com, erase every piece of data ever written to the server.... but hes not God, and he cant make things all better for you at the wave of a hand. This thing works here on one thing only - that is: Interest. If he starts dictating terms right and left, then there will be dimished interest from the public; and hes avoided doing this, for these reasons precisely. An analogy, would be; A nuclear-armed country *may* have severe means at their disposal, but what good would come of it? If I read you right, John, you cross the line in continuing to rag on Jim for simply knowing and staying the course, and his role.

I quote here the learned Professor Noam Chomsky, in his book "The Common Good", published in 1998. In context, he wrote this paragraph about how the media in the USA (and many other parts of the world) operate:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

You can't argue with Rabbi Chomsky. Unless youve got something other than the plain truth in mind.

It has driven away several credentialed contributors that I know of. And this fact prevents Wikipedia from gaining much academic esteem.

This may simply be due to perception. I remember RK criticising SL and Danny for calling him on his outbursts, by saying essentially: "If *we* dont make a stand here, *we'll* be "forced out" just like in Newsgroup X." Aside from the rich psychological study material in that statement alone, it does represent a victim mentality, or an aspect of human powerlessness that makes people think that they cant have a place. What Jim is really against is the setup of a team-sport mentality with several people here vs several people there. It belies the nature of sysopdom, as well, as were all human and even sysops will take sides, as they often do now. The assertion that Jim (?) made that sysops must avoid argument is idealistic and does not represent the reality.

You (Jim) always seem to come down on the side of those who are pro-Israel and/or populist, without regard to the merits or facts. That is your bias. As long as you decide who gets to play on your wiki, it will reflect your personal biases.

I dont know this. I'm just stating my cause and interests intelligently here - without rhetoric (but perhaps a few double-entendres, however) Before I get back into it with anyone; being ganged up on is not my idea of fun. Like I told you before, I can see why Jim banned you - not because of politics at all, but because of the spite you show for other people, and a kind of desperation in your tone that belies your demonstrated capacity for reason. = SV

Jonathan Walther wrote:

...

Certainly potential bias does deserve a centralized and open discussion.

Your phrasing here seems to indicate you don't wish to acknowledge the fact of already existing bias in the Wikipedia. It does exist.

Sure it does. I'm sure that some of the bias you deliberately inserted is still in there, waiting to be repaired. For example.

You always seem to come down on the side of those who are pro-Israel and/or populist, without regard to the merits or facts.

This is simply false. Indeed, I'm under the very strong impression that more contributors are pro-Palestinian than not.

I come down firmly on the side of those who seek to work co-operatively, and who seek to eliminate bias through a process of kind and thoughtful accomodation, as against those who make provocative and biased edits.

--Jimbo