[WikiEN-l] CSD T1

Peter Ansell ansell.peter at gmail.com
Thu May 18 10:02:55 UTC 2006

On 5/16/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/16/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Peter Mackay wrote:
> > >>Jimbo's word on the matter:
> > >>
> > >>   The point is, we don't act *in Wikipedia* as a Democrat, a
> > >>   Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are
> > >>   Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral.
> > >
> > > With all due respect to you and Jimbo, that's not the way it happens.
> > > Thoughtful, loving, neutral, touchy-feely gets good marks, but editors don't
> > > suddenly turn into opinionless automatons. Nor do we want them to. We want
> > > Republicans to have input into articles on the Republican Party. We just
> > > don't want it to be Republican propaganda.
> >
> > With all due respect to you, I think you're slightly misinterpreting
> > what Jimbo (and I) actually mean. I don't think either of us are
> > suggesting that editors should be 'opinionless automatons', just that
> > they shouldn't let their opinions influence the way they write articles.
> >
> I'd say that's pretty much impossible.  If nothing else, what you
> believe is going to affect what you know, and that's going to have a
> significant influence on the way you write an article.  IMO the way
> Wikipedians should produce an NPOV article is through the consensus of
> people with multiple points of view.  Templates regarding points of
> view can very much support this.
> That isn't to say that I think a template which says "This user think
> George W. Bush is a moron" is an example of such a template.  Actually
> I'd say a person using such a template is showing a lack of the skills
> needed to work with others.  But "This user is an atheist", or "This
> user is a Linux user", on the other hand, I think is not only
> non-harmful, I think it is helpful.

Apparently labelling yourself is divisive and inflammatory, taking the
most general definition of divisive (aka. categorising) and saying
that because you disagree with atheism this person is deliberately
trying to inflame you or some other person. On the other hand, when
you are making personal attacks on someone it is clearly inflammatory
to people who believe that you shouldn't say things like that about
the US president, or any other figure. How did a simple statement
about your faith in a certain religion get put together with being

> Again just my opinion, but I don't think there's a consensus on this
> matter, and his majesty Jimbo has explicitly stated that he has not
> made an edict on the matter, so speedy deletion should be out of the
> question.
> Anthony

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list