[WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie

Thu Apr 9 10:27:04 UTC 2009

I agree that in many instances, there can be a bitter editing war that 
doesn't necessarily end up with a NPOV being selected, but in my view, 
most of the time, patience & persistence win, leading to most articles 
being relatively neutral.  By no means would I say it was perfect & 
there are probably things that can be done to improve it, but on the 
whole it is one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths; not least because to 
the general public who are not editors or administrators or who do not 
participate in editing, Wikipedia is seen as a neutral, independent 
source of fact.  Sure, there are certain areas that need improvement, 
but once the wider Wikipedia community is brought in, as they have now 
been, thanks to your highlighting of the problems with Alan Cabal, calm 
& common sense tend to prevail.
I disagree with your statement

"One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV"

because I believe *generally* there is a NPOV, with problems arising in 
certain instances.

On 09/04/2009 04:54, Bill Carter 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
>    