[WikiEN-l] what are the ethics involved?

[Thommandel at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/2/2006 10:05:28 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au writes:

G'day Thom,

> Is it ethical for a Wiki editor, who is also an  admistrator,  to edit  
both 
> sides of an issue?

If  that editor is a good Wikipedian --- and, being an administrator, we  
should hope he is --- then it is entirely appropriate for him (or her)  
to edit any article he (or she) damn well pleases.


        What if the editor only  thinks he is a good wikipedian, but in 
reality
         by what he  does, is actually promoting a POV? How is that 
determined? 
        and where is the line  drawn between good editing and POV pushing?

It's called "writing from a  netural point-of-view", and some of us pride 
ourselves on our ability to  do just that.



If a reader, a researcher say, accesses  the pages of standard and non-
        standard theories, what  kind of "neutrality" is he looking for? If 
there is a 
        controversy between  standard and non-standard, was it good editing 
to 
        remove that controversy  from the Wikientry?    Is it "neutral" for 
an admin 
        editor advocate of the  standard theory to write "non-standard 
theories are 
        widely discredited" on  the non-standard theory page?

You might as well ask if it's ethical for  me to edit an article about 
Manchester United FC ...
 
        You are assuming "good Wikipedian"  but what about not-good 
        Wikipedian  admin/editors? How do you  identify  them?  
        For example, what  sort of evidence  would you want  if I were 
        to present a case  against an aledged  wikiadmin pov  pusher? 
 
tm