Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 7/28/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The bit that was funny was that it wasn't clear vandalism - it was almost believable.
Eh? Almost believable in the sense that it is almost believable that John Seigenthaler was directly involved in the murders of RFK and JFK.
No, almost believable in the sense that similarly nonsensical stuff is on Conservapedia and it isn't considered vandalism there.
On the one wiki, we've got Christian fundamentalists writing articles based solely on their own POV. The result is articles that appear ridiculous to non-Christian-fundamentalists who don't share their POV. On the other wiki we've got white supremacists writing articles based solely on their POV. I find it quite believable that they'd produce articles that appear ridiculous to non-white-supremacists.
There is a difference between demonising your opponent to such a degree that you will believe anything about them (even that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were not a forgery, but that that it was "almost believable" as a representation of Jewish thought at large), and taking a cool look at the real circumstances in the cold light of day, and checking to see if you are joking *at* the people in question, or whether you are helping them justify their alienation by demonstrating that you aren't going to address them on a level playing field, for whatever reasons.
If we were writing a Wikipedia article about them then I would most heartily support making that article as NPOV as possible. That's what Wikipedia is all about.
This is wikien-l. It's a discussion forum. We're allowed to have POVs here.