[WikiEN-l] Re: The integrity of Wikipedia

[Charles Matthews]

Fred Bauder wrote


> We could say that in war sometimes the tactic of terrorizing the civilian
> population or governmental authorities is used. See [[Shock and awe]]
which
> is, I guess, intended to terrorize military forces. It would seem by this
> operational definition that the 911 attack had that intent, at least the
> Trade Center Towers portion with respect to the American population.

In writing history on the basis of intention, one is stuck with trying to
justify inference of that intention.  That's a general problem, though.
Even to call someone a 'reformer' moves from the idea of change to the
supposed purpose; even to say a government introduces drugs legisation in
order to deal with a social problem assumes something.

I'm not one who has any great problem with the 'terrorist' term.  The
inference that the 9/11 attacks were by terrorists seems stronger than that
Osama wanted to take credit for ordering them; the inference that Osama
wanted to take that credit seems stronger than the inference that the
attacks were by or on behalf of Al-Qaida; and the evidence that the attacks
were (in some way) Al-Qaida seems very strong, by now.  The inference that
the subsequent anthrax attacks in the USA were also terrorist in intention
also seems quite strong; no one I think can say just what those were
intended to do, though, with any degree of certainty.  I mention this
contrast to keep a perspective - could 'just' have been a deranged person.

To return to the integrity issue - I wouldn't use the Wikipedia articles as
reference for contemporary history, except as casual reading.  That's
because 'caveat emptor' applies here.  I  don't think that the arguments
brought forward really argue a lack of integrity, as things stand.  Which is
not to say that there aren't too many POV edits.

Charles