[WikiEN-l] Anti-bias (was D.V.)

[steve v]

Slimvirgin wrote: 
> with you is to write in a dry, disinterested,
> encyclopedic style, and to cite excellent sources.

"Dry and disinterested" is not necessarily good
writing (hence readable writing), nor should the
notion be synonymous with encyclopedic writing, or our
general interpretation of it. Good writing is both
balanced and interesting.  And "cite excellent
sources" is always controversial, as my sources tend
to be more excellent than others, and thus tend to
represent different views and hence are rejected.

Further, there are issues which contradict common
dogma or history, yet are extremely obvious to any
neutral observation. For example to state 'the Vietnam
War was as much (if not more) anti-democratic as it
was "anti-communist"' is simply the purist truism of
that history --it shouldnt be considered either POV or
controversial.  It is however rejected by those who
favor more detached, clinical language, which puts
emphasis on the abstract, elite-view politiculars than
on the human issues, the moral issues, or even the
basic facts of what actually happened.  

The problem with being detached was once an issue with
the Irish Potato Famine article, which was written
with a focus on the particulars of a fungus and
Catholic overpopulation rather than the socio-economic
background or the human impact. Some still assert
there was deliberate intent to cause human death, and
though that assertion is considered by "detached"
academics to be largely out of bounds, it's
nevertheless an issue which required some treatment,
if only to clarify it and the terms used. In that
case, more "encyclopedic" emphasis meant objecting to
treating the issue at all. Again, using detached
language often only serves the detached POV. We're
neither an encyclopedia for infants requiring strained
meals, nor one for experts with all the excellent
prerequisites.

SV

--- slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

> > --- David Vizcarra <david.vizcarra at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Like you have pointed out, non-NPOV views are
> being
> > > pushed by groups
> > > arguing with individuals.
> 
> Steve and David, the way to deal with a group of
> editors who disagree
> with you is to write in a dry, disinterested,
> encyclopedic style, and
> to cite excellent sources. I've encountered very few
> editors who will
> revert material like that, no matter how much they
> disagree with it.
> The stronger the opposition, the more persuasive
> your writing,
> sources, and arguments have to be. This usually
> leads to better
> articles, as frustrating as the experience might be.
> 
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com