[WikiEN-l] Re: Anti-scientific bias has me hopping mad!

[Jimmy Wales]

Gareth Owen wrote:
> Certainly, a skeptical voice is healthy, but lets remember that oil
> companies have agendas too.

Of course.  Any discussion of content should move to talk pages, and
my own thoughts about the content should be pointedly ignored by
everyone.  :-) I only care to address policy and process, and trust
the users to work out the content over time.

What we can all agree on, of course, is the process and the desire for
NPOV, which means: a presentation of the topic that people on all
sides of the debate can agree with.

We achieve that most of the time, but sometimes we don't.  I was just
reading the article on Hugo Chavez of Venezuela yesterday, and I don't
think it lives up to our standards -- it is almost pure hagiography,
and it omits or glosses over much that Chavez opponents would consider
essential.  EVEN SO, it was the most even-handed presentation of the
issue that I could find.  Nearly everything else was transparent
advocacy one way or the other.

So, if I were to edit, I would have edited that article.  But I find
it best for me to not edit, because I am currently judge, jury, and
executioner, a job that I don't particularly enjoy.  After we move to
a committee system, perhaps I will sometimes be able to edit without
people fearing that my edits are an expression of policy, rather than
just one more person trying to help out.

--Jimbo