[Foundation-l] PMS propaganda?

[Milos Rancic]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I didn't read all of the footnotes at Wikipedia:About article, but I
think that I may conclude that the definition is not taken from any
WMF document, but it is a self-definition. And even if Wikipedia:About
stays "According to WMF, Wikipedia is this and that<ref1>", it is
again a self-definition because it is the place where the entity
defines itself (no matter which POV is that; if it is defined by WMF,
it is WMF POV, if it is defined by the community, it is CPOV). But, it
is obvious that we don't agree about that :) I understand what do you
want to say and I may say that your position is understandable from
your POV ;)

So, I may say that I found a disputable example. Better examples are
hundreds (maybe thousands?) of pages under Wikipedia: name space of
any Wikipedia which describe rules related to content creation,
maintenance and community regulation; sentences may be "vandals are
bad", "trolls are bad", "civility is good"; also, Five pillars of
Wikipedia are not [as a whole] a part of Wikipedia definitions given
by WMF; all decisions made by ArbCom or community on some poll; etc.
etc. -- nothing of that is NPOV; everything is more or less nicely
worded POV.