[Foundation-l] PMS propaganda?

[Dan Rosenthal]

On Sep 28, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal  
> <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's not quite accurate. If the stated purpose of Wikipedia is to
>> "bring free knowledge" than saying so is precisely NPOV, because it's
>> a mere restatement of what the foundation claims its purpose is. It's
>> not a point of view: It's an objective metric based on how the
>> organization in question defines itself.
>>
>> You're confusing the properties of the position with the statement of
>> the position. Yes, free knowledge is a point of view. Saying that the
>> Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement is to bring free knowledge  
>> is
>> not a point of view: it's an objective restatement of a fact (the  
>> fact
>> being that the WMF identifies this as their mission statement).
>
> I think you didn't understand my intention. Saying so in the article
> about Wikipedia on Wikipedia is according to NPOV if it is a
> "Wikipedia statement". However, I was talking about the page which
> defines Wikipedia at Wikipedia (let's say Wikipedia:About). Defining
> yourself is not NPOV, it is very POV; actually, strictly speaking,
> even the word "encyclopedia" defines that we belong to a particular
> (positivist) ideology. (No matter how that ideology is common these
> days.) And unlike a definition at the article Wikipedia (which should
> be NPOV article), definition at the article Wikipedia:About is doing a
> self-definition.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Again, I disagree. Even if it is on a project page defining Wikipedia,  
it's defining Wikipedia according to what the foundation's definition  
of Wikipedia is. Therefore, the statement itself still comes from a  
neutral (objective) point of view. Again the actual inherent points of  
view implied by words are not relevant when the words themselves are  
being used to repeat the foundation's definition of Wikipedia, or it's  
mission.

Wikipedia's mission could be "to fight jihadists for the glory of  
George Bush in Afghanistan". If that was how the foundation defines  
Wikipedia, then it is entirely npov for the Wikipedia:About page to  
define Wikipedia as a project "to fight jihadists for the glory of  
George Bush in Afghanistan" because that's merely an objective  
restatement of what the foundation itself defines Wikipedia as. The  
fact that the words themselves are charged or biased, or opinionated,   
does not make the restating of them carry the same point of view.

Wikipedia is whatever the foundation says it is by definition. It is  
what it is. And saying such does not inherently carry a point of view.

-Dan