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

[Ray Saintonge]

You can't expect to stir shit and keep your stick clean at the same 
time.  In their exchange, neither Stan nor Anthere used the word 
"conspiracy", but you seemed enthusiastic to impute that motivation.  
You may very well find it impossible to imagine that bias intrudes into 
a good-faith dispute, so much so that you need to imagine bad faith and 
conspiracies just to make sense of it.  Maybe the rest of us do not 
derive the same perverted pleasure as you out of being offended.

What I saw in the most recent posts from the two principal participants 
was a tone that looked for understanding, not one intended to inflame 
passions.

Systemic bias is anything but conspiratorial.  This is quite different 
from overt bias.  Those who practise systemic bias usually do so in the 
belief that their actions are perfectly moral.  I have to believe a 
preacher's bigotted homophobic rants from the pulpit are uttered in good 
faith.

Ec

Rick wrote:

>What UTTER nonsense.  This has nothing do with bias, just a difference of outlook.  I CANNOT imagine how you can possibly consider this naming difference bias.  And I am offended that you believe that there is some sort of conspiracy among English-speaking Wikipedians to downgrade the accomplishments of other people.  How about cleaning up the French language Wikipedia before you start casting stones?
> 
>RickK
>
>Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> 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.
>  
>
>>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.
>
>There is a bias of the en wikipedia to have anglo success appears bigger 
>than they may appear to african people for example, just as there is 
>definitly a bias on the french wikipedia which makes France appear more 
>important that other french speaking countries.
>
>We are all biaised, and little can be done about this.
>