[WikiEN-l] NPOV and controversial material

[Daniel Ehrenberg]

In case you didn't know, Daniel Ehrenberg and
LittleDan are the same person.

Some people (not me) think a lack of a "drugs are
evil" stance are just as bad as if you lacked a
"murder is bad" stance (although then those people
turn around and say "war is peace; let's bomb iraq"
and "killing people will help reduce murder rates").

--LittleDan

Jimbo wrote:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> I don't think we should have an actual photograph in
this case. Just
>think what would be acceptable in schools (actually,
a lot of
>wikipedia probably wouldn't be acceptable in schools,
like its lack of
>"drugs are evil" stance, but this is much worse). I
don't think
>photographs of genitalia belong in an encyclopedia,
no matter how
>informative. Drawings would be a much better
alternative.

One of the beauties of NPOV is that it works like a
fancy martial arts
move to undermine critics.  Anyone who is critical of
our lack of
"drugs are evil" stance is not going to be able to say
that we are a
pro-drug encyclopedia, because we aren't pro- or anti-
anything.

If a fact is value-sensitive, we don't assert it, we
report that it is
asserted.  We can quite honestly and accurately report
on the
arguments of the drug warriors and their opponents,
and we should be
doing it in such a way that neither side will find
anything particular
objectionable about our presentation.

It a little harder to wrap one's mind around NPOV for
a picture --
after all, isn't a picture objectively 'true' in a
sense, so long as
it isn't faked?  But a picture says a thousand words,
and those words
can have bias, nuance, suggested other meanings, etc. 
100 pictures or
drawings of something controversial will all be
different, and some
will be objectionable to some people for various
reasons.  The NPOV
choice should make everyone -- or nearly so -- happy.

We have managed to have several articles on obscene
words that are
tactful and tasteful and informative and entertaining
and NPOV.  We
ought to be able to treat this issue in the same way.

I think that Daniel Ehrenberg is right, that a drawing
is likely to be
more educational, more informative, and -- importantly
-- to be more
tasteful.

Not everything in the wikipedia needs to be such that
mainstream
parents will think it is o.k. for kids to read,
although most of it
should be.  Someday there will probably be a kids
wikipedia, probably
partly machine-generated and partly human-edited.

--Jimbo

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com