[WikiEN-l] Re: minor issue, but still a npov warning

[Stan Shebs]

Anthere wrote:

>
>
> Stan Shebs a écrit:
>
>> And you corrected them on this, right? This is absolutely nothing
>> to do with NPOV, 
>
>
> Then we just do not have the same perception of what is neutral, this 
> is all. For me, naming things (like a polish city) may have to do with 
> neutrality of report.

Except that this isn't even about naming, it's whether there is
one article or two.

>
>> and it's unfair to hardworking editors to say
>> that they're biased and not doing anything about it. 
>
>
> This is an unfair comment, as I mentionned that the articles were great.
> What I report rather tends to fit in systemic bias of Wikipedia.

But it's a very very bad thing to say to people who take issues of
bias and npov seriously - sort of like driving down the street,
saying "nice house" and then throwing a rock through the window. I
know you didn't intend it that way, but you're a well-respected
person (as witness the messages supporting you and against me), and
a board member, so what you say carries a lot of weight. This is a
public mailing list; all the messages are carefully archived forever,
then carefully indexed by Google, and if past experience is any
guide, there's a good chance that your initial message will be
brought out as support for one side or another in an edit war.

If you had said that about one of my articles, without prior
private email or talk page note, I would have been mortally
insulted, and very angry. Look to Jimbo as an example; he's
been pretty careful about not taking sides on content.

>
> What you
>
>> report fits exactly into the worst stereotypes of the French;
>> sneering at other people's work, but not taking any responsibility
>> for having let this perceived problem go unmentioned for years.
>
>
> Hu ? Well, I let you responsability for saying this.

I thought hard about whether to include this, and I fear I was
misinterpreted. I personally don't have this feeling; I love
France, would go more often if I could, and since November
I'm wondering if I could emigrate there. Again, because
this is a public list, there are people reading your comments
who would be willing to use them against WP in some way.
(Lest anyone think this is paranoid, I work with the GNU
project; 10 years ago people laughed at the suggestion that
Microsoft would ever even notice open source, and now Bill
Gates slams it in every interview he gives.) Every step up
in Alexa, WP is going to be scrutinized more and more
closely. Just think of how much airplay Larry Sanger's
recent comments got; it was all over online sites, and
so the first thing that many people heard about WP was
"WP's cofounder thinks it's bad". Not fair perhaps, but
that's what happens with public statements.

>> You said these scientists "know Wikipedia"; did you ask them why
>> they didn't do anything about it themselves?
>
>
> Some already ponctually corrected a couple of things.
> But generally, they do not believe in Wikipedia neutrality though they 
> see the efforts to try to be neutral.
> You may not expect french people who really write a bad english to go 
> correct all what is biaised in the english wikipedia.
>
> This is a good question : why did not they fix it ?

I did not myself say "fix it" - my expectation would have
been that "doing something" included simply asking on the
talk page. A question as simple as "why doesn't the Huygens
probe have its own article?" is usually enough to spur a
flurry of edits by knowledgeable people. Those of us who are
serious about bias will drop everything else to look at that
sort of thing and try to fix it. I think that's part of why
your original comment hurts; I've sacrificed a bunch of time
working on subjects that I personally don't enjoy, just to
try to address other people's claims of bias.

>
> It took me three months to dare edit the english wikipedia after I met 
> it. I feared criticism of my english like hell; And still fear it very 
> much, as there are regularly unpleasant comments made about it.
> Recently, I had to block 2 times an editor who was being extremely 
> rude with non english people on meta. A place where international 
> people ARE welcome. When editors rudely handle non english in a place 
> such as meta, you might guess how nice these editors can be on the 
> english wikipedia itself.

FWIW, I believe that all people should be welcome on all WPs. It's
just unbelievably rude to criticize someone's command of a language,
about at the level of commenting on body odor, and my experience is
that the critics are not necessarily that competent themselves. The
problem is that the person being criticized is not going to have an
easy time making an official complaint and getting it heard.

So I'd like to see meta's policy extended throughout WP; in
the meantime, if a non-native speaker is being harassed, just
let me know and I'll apply a few of those "harsh words" to the
misbehaving editor.

>> I also note for instance that (as of several hours ago) the
>> French wikipedia had a single article with Huygens as the second
>> half. Are we supposed to take that to mean the Europeans are
>> biased against themselves?
>
>
> No, mostly there were no french editors motivated to edit this page. 
> At least, these pages are poorly referenced by google.
>
> Now, what upset me deeply in this comment you made, is that when I 
> comment on a point of the english wikipedia, you THROW ME IN THE FACE 
> how bad the french people are themselves and how bad the french 
> article is.

Did I say the French article was "bad"? I think the one/two article
choice is a trivial issue, and fr:'s organization is perfectly
fine. But it seems like a double standard to announce to the whole
world that en:'s article is evidence of systemic bias there, even
though the same organization is being used in other language WPs
without anybody seeming to be troubled by it.

> What is not fine is to resort to personal comments on those having a 
> perception that you do not share, and try to lower the possible 
> validity of what they say by resorting of calling her "French".
>
> I feel quite upset by your comment. If you wish to close your eyes to 
> internal comments, or to attack those of us who try to point out to 
> what is not perfect, do not be suprised when there is criticism from 
> public audience.

I'm sorry to have upset you, that was not my intent. I'm guessing
that maybe you weren't completely aware of this list's visibility;
it was an eye-opener for me the first time an argument on the net
came up in a job interview, and since that time I'm (usually :-) )
pretty careful only to post things that I'm willing to stand behind
for the rest of my life (check out Google Groups for things posted
long ago by "ssc-vax!sts" that he maybe wishes he hadn't said...).

Stan