[Wikipedia-l] Bias in the west and such media

[Stevertigo]

> James penned: (edited for length)
> Certainly potential bias does deserve a centralized and open
> discussion.
> Some of that is unavoidable, but we should be careful not to let this
> discussion (about possible sources of bias in the wikipedia) to turn
> into a flamewar about what is undoubtably a very emotional and very
> VERY complex situation.

And 'caution' is warranted - I would of course be cautious to be overly
cautious.
And even your use of the word 'complex' is complex.

> I think that this notion -- that "free discussion" is "censored" in
> the US is absolutely farcical.

Well, it's really about the marketing of public opinion - to what degree (if
any. !) does the Corpculture maintain a homogenized conservative to moderate
bandwidth... As far as mass media goes, which feeds the bulk of public
opinion, which determines action: If you see it, you believe it, you vote
it. Assuming the bias is X, is the degree of X equivlent here on WP... In
otherwords does the en:WP represent an international voice, or an excusively
Euro-American voice, and were are there obstacles to the former?

> And specific allegations of bias against particular news outlets are
undeniably
> true.

Well, this too, is generalizing... the accusation itself is in some ways a
tool for creating the appearance of bias. Scream anti-this or anti-that loud
enough, and there will be some response. The issue is to not just get around
the rhetoric, but uproot the rhetoric. All of it - and in its place, fact.

> But taken as a whole, there's a very rich and complex debate
> about all these things.
> we should be wary of straying into _content_ discussions about what is
> actually right or wrong in that context.

That there is rich and complex debate is true,  but there are issues of
sources, and I think with regard to sources, there is a tendency to
discredit information from sources that is in any way critical of certain
POV. The criticism should of course be based on factual and moral appeals.
Countercriticism based on practicalities is mere practicality - and should
be characterized as such, and represented plainly.

I am against characterizing all sides as merely POV; There is a heirarchy of
POV in my opinion, and that is; the one with more truth in it is superior -
The one with more clarity of purpose, the least supression of facts, or
intelligent comment: The stronger appeal, based on principle is Superior to
a self-interested, [[moral  relativist]] pov. Thus, a real definition of
'NPOV,' is the standard I'm talking about.