[WikiEN-l] more WP:OFFICE shenanigans

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day Steve,

> On 3/14/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> 
> wrote:
>> We *don't* strive for balance.  We strive for a neutral 
>> point-of-view. The distinction is small, but vital.
> 
> Can you elaborate? I'm only just getting my head around WP:V. When I
>  understand NPOV, I'll be 2/3 of the way to Wiki-enlightenment.

I'm after a different trifecta, me.  I understand DICK and IAR just fine ...

Basically, balance is "give all sides of the story, however ridiculous". 
  We see this a lot in political reporting, particularly in America, I 
understand[0].

For example:

    Lyndon LaRouche is leading the charge to impeach Dick Cheney, whose
    plan to invade Iran and obliterate the area with nuclear weapons has
    been described as "Satanic".  Cheney supporters, however, insist that
    rumours about his alleged taste for mass-murder are slightly
    exaggerated.

"Balance" is a case of giving all participants in a case equal time, 
without prejudice as to who one judges a participant and who one does 
not (and "equal" is defined as "the side I like most gets more time"). 
It's a bankrupt concept that leads to absurdities like the one above 
(which, incidentally, is a 100% true case), or --- if that's too subtle 
--- the homeless bloke down the street getting equal time with a 
government agency, while he explains that the CIA are performing secret 
mind control experiments with gadgets they insert into his teeth while 
he sleeps.

It is *not* neutrality, since, in allowing certain people a 
disproportionate amount of say in an article, we're arguing that these 
people are more significant, more important, and --- worst of all --- 
more likely to have some connection to reality than they actually do.

WP:NPOV puts it like this:

    We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a
    small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and
    views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented
    except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a
    significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might
    be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to
    present competing views in proportion to their representation among
    experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

But personally I think my version's better, because it mentions Lyndon 
LaRouche and the CIA and mind-controlling gadgets, all of which (when 
not written by the wrong author) instantly increases the value of *any* 
email.


<snip />

[0] Australia has its own absurd version.  Anyone remember that fool
     Alston insisting that ABC News give the Coalition and Labor "equal
     time", so that one is not unfairly promoted over the other?
     Beautifully parodied (with dancing girls!) by /The Chaser/, way back
     in ... whenever it was.  Too many Coalition govts, I've lost count.
     2001?  1998?


--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date: 13/03/2006