[WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie

Thu Apr 9 11:16:31 UTC 2009

This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by
others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't
"A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It
then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor
even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric
device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a
mistake to be retracted when spotted.

Bill, you stated that "One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is
the one about how there is generally a NPOV".But nobody's said that in any
of your cites. What people have said is, it is a goal of all articles, and a
non-negotiable expectation that articles and their authors should aim
towards for an article. Nobody's said it has actually been reached for
many/most articles. All your "David Gerard" quotes - none show him saying
that it exists for most articles, rather they show him saying that it is an
important innovation of the project to explicitly identify NPOV as an ideal
goal and top priority, at a project content level.

Whether anyone personally believes NPOV is a "good idea" or not (or a
foolish idealists dream) there is in fact no conflict between a statement
that some person sees it as a very significant stance/innovation or that the
project's community has identified it as a major priority, and despite this,
achieving it is often elusive and many/most articles haven't yet done so.

You then claim that "Many of you... know exactly how patently false the NPOV
/doctrine/ is" without actually substantiating that statement at all. The
NPOV /doctrine/ is that:

   - All significant views on a topic that can be sourced to reliable
   sources, should, in an ideal article, be represented in a balanced manner.
   - That while articles may take a long time to get there,the long term
   goal over time is to gradually see articles reducing a biased viewpoint in
   favor of a neutral one.

That is the "NPOV doctrine", put simply. It doesn't seem "false" or
falsifiable, because it doesn't say how Wikipedia is edited, but how it
/should be/ edited. So the bare statement that "many know" that these two
statements are "patently false" seems in the cold light of day, ridiculously
unsupported by your post, which doesn't attempt to disprove these two points
at all, but attempts to show simply, they haven't been achieved yet (which
nobody's disputing anyway).

Brilliant, Sherlock.

By contrast, David Gerard's actual point (which one may agree with or not)
in all the quotes you cite, seems to simply be that, in his view, an
explicit statement and goal to this effect is an important innovation for an
encyclopedia to explicitly and publicly have stated as its core editorial
policy.

Sloppy logic, rhetorical post.

FT2

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Bill Carter <billdeancarter at yahoo.com>wrote:

> One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how
> there is generally a NPOV. Wikipedia administrator David Gerard recently
> wrote on this mailing list, "NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical
> than letting anyone edit the website." In fact, Wikipedia is a battleground
> in which the opinions of the most competitive group win out, rather than
> some theoretical neutral POV. Many of you are far more knowledgeable about
> the POV pushers at Wikipedia and know exactly how patently false the NPOV
> doctrine is.
>
> A Wikipedia article was recently written about Alan Cabal that, in my
> opinion, met Wikipedia's notability standards beyond a doubt (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article).
> It was speedy deleted on March 30th, 2009 within hours of being re-created.
> A deletion review followed which was conducted like a 4th AfD and the
> outcome was that the speedy delete was upheld (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30).
> Throughout there was talk of keeping one's personal views to oneself.
> Completely ridiculous considering user Bali ultimate, who nominated the Alan
> Cabal article for speedy deletion, later admitted that he had been watching
> its rewrite very closely for weeks and that's why he had pounced!
> Immediately afterward I looked into David Gerard's aphorism and, looking far
> back, found that he had said the same thing years ago on another Wikipedia
> mailing list: "I think NPOV is our greatest
>  innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." (
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2007-August/029947.html)
>
> Now there is an ongoing discussion in the CounterPunch article about how
> mere mentions of Alan Cabal are being expunged from the entire website (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Expunging_Alan_Cable_.28Alan_Cabal.29).
> The CounterPunch article already has a sordid history. For example, on
> January 28th, 2009, user Jarjam copyedited the CounterPunch article to say,
> "CounterPunch has also been
> criticized for publishing articles by
> authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have
> defended the pro-Hitler persepective of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest
> Zundel. Zundel is the author of 'The Hitle We Loved and Why'."(
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=267015135&oldid=263748961).
> Nearly two months later this "unsourced libellous claim of contributors
> being pro-Hitler" was removed by user Rd232, on March 22nd 2009 to be exact
> (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=278994805&oldid=278994056).
> Instead of getting it right, Alan Cabal's article "Star Chamber Redux: the
> Prosecution of Zundel" was simply left out of the article and then on April
> 5th, 2009, user Verbal removed the last mention of Alan Cabal that remained
> in the CounterPunch article (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=281912735&oldid=280865106).
> David Gerard truly believes there is a NPOV on this website, and has even
> defended his ownership over his future Barlett quotation: "Mostly I'm the
> person I know
>  of calling it Wikipedia's greatest
> innovation ;-p much more so than merely letting anyone edit the
> website. Are there others?" (June 2008, David Gerard,
> http://infoholics-anonymous.blogspot.com/2008/06/changing-world-via-wikipedia.html
> )
>
> Such a thorough job has been done this past week of wiping Wikipedia clean
> of any mention of Alan Cabal that even the Wikipedia article for New York
> Press no longer lists him as a former contributor (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=281915790&oldid=275246572).
> David Gerard so firmly believes that Wikipedia has a NPOV that he can be
> found repeating again and again, "Wikipedia’s fundamental content policy of
> Neutral Point of View is, in
> my opinion, its greatest innovation - far greater than merely letting
> anyone edit the website." ( September 2007, David Gerard) (
> http://ivo.co.za/2007/09/20/wikipedia-as-efficient-market/) On his blog:
> "I consider the Neutral Point Of View policy our most important innovation,
> far more so than letting anyone edit the site." (
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/12/17/rorschach-knols/) (December
> 2007, David Gerard).
>
> Probably the reason Alan Cabal has been viciously persecuted by Wikipedians
> for over a year now is because he has defended the freedom of speech of
> holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. But then again Alan Cabal has written so many
> controversial articles over the years that I guess Wikipedians could have
> many reasons for suppressing his biography and work. For the last time, I
> leave you with another permutation of what is surely David Gerard's greatest
> quote: "NPOV is Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than letting
> any idiot edit the website." (
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/92817
> )
>
> Sincerely,
> Bill Carter
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>