JzG's not talking about the Intelligent Design Crowd in this case, but he finally says what everyone's been thinking. I just wish he and others would do something about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=213118738

I'd say he's right, myself. I mean, a stopped clock is right twice a day and all that, but he's right in this case - "endlessly polite POV-pushers" probably will be the end of WP someday, at least in terms of user attrition...

Does anyone think flagged revisions (or edit-approval, to use the less shiny term) will help with that? I'd like to think it's the first thing they've done to address the fact that POV-pushing is endemic within the system, but some arguments I've read here and elsewhere are making me have some doubts.

The only way to solve the problem of POV-pushing is to train people to be POV-pullers.

Let me explain.

When two or more factions have competing points of view, neither side tries to understand where the other sides are coming from.

An uninvolved journalist will interview the parties and try to synthesize a coherent story that conforms to the Vexagon Model, so that the net tension is in balance. The result is not the same as being neutral. Rather it's more like dynamic equilibrium.

It's rude and wasteful to invite people to a party and then complain about their presence. What is missing is an overt editorial policy, the lack of which is addressed by the unsatisfying substitute of a series of typically divisive and inconclusive disciplinary procedures.

Instead, Wikipedia promises a "neutral point of view" - the most tempting honeypot for anyone who believes their viewpoint to be unfairly discounted in the mainstream media and academic press.

Finally, a place which will treat zoophilia/Prem Rawat/911 conspiracy theories (etc.) fairly!

Whatever the intellectual merits and shortcomings of "neutral point of view", on the front end, it's horrible way to make clear what is and isn't wanted from contributors. If the project doesn't want 911 conspiracy theorists, why not say so in policy? Some would answer, "it's right there in NPOV", but no, actually, it isn't - that's one reason why these arguments never end.

By the time we get around to looking at bans, typically the contributor has sunk a lot of time into the project, may have taken great care to read and follow the rules, and in many cases may be sold on what he/she believes to the Project's mission. However kooky their ideas, one can hardly blame them, on a personal level, for feeling betrayed

Yes, well, WP is not neutral, but the odd thing is that they still think they are. And the more they say they are, the faster you should run. "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons" (Emerson). You just know that a newspaper called "The Voice of the People" is probably the voice of the party suppressing the people. And a newspaper called "Truth" ("Tas" in Russian) has got to be a tissue of lies. Fox News, "Fair and Balanced." Please.

You just have to wonder in these propaganda organs, how far up the chain of self-deception extends? To me, that's really the only interesting thing. How much do chronic con artists actually believe, of what they spin?

At its best WP actually gives up any pretense of neutrality, turns on POV, and allows articles on "Catholicism" (written by pro-Catholics) and "Anti-Catholicism", and so on. But they only really do that well when it comes to religion. And then only with certain prescribed religions. And they could do the same on any other controversial topic from zoophilia to pedophilia. But any attempt to allow the "pro" side the same debate time/space as the "anti" side, on those issues, would make Aunt Gertrude faint dead away, and some of the rest would be so politically incorrect that it would make the all the politically correct people faint too-- so you'll never see it. Meanwhile, hypocrisy reigns. But what's new about that? It's not like Wikipedia is any less hypocritical than most social institutions. You're just mad because it promised it wouldn't be hypocritical and said it wasn't, and then you found out it was anyway. So?

Wikipedia does not do NPOV, its viewpoint is "generally accepted opinion". JzG is just restating this and saying minority opinions should not be allowed. Does anyone think that JzG is capable of determining whether a minority opinion truly is a "kook theory"? On Wikipedia there is no mechanism when sources disagree to write an article which contains the "truth".

Milton you just reminded me aof a QI episode - someone pointed out that any country with the word democratic in its name (Ie democratic republic of the congo formally Zaire) usually isn't.

Wow. My opinion of Guy just went up about three notches...

Yep, for sure. Any "People's Republic" of anything, is also rarely a republic as we understand the term (i.e., a true representational democracy). Unless by "democracy" you use the Cuban definition of "You can either vote Yes or No for the single Party candidate".

As I've said before, Wikipedia's method where something comes up and you only get to vote yes or no, and something like supraplural consensus usually carries the day, reminds me of nothing so much as Cuban democracy. The Wikicultists always say it's not a democracy, and they're sort of right. It's not.

In defence of Godwin and his law, the reason Hitler always comes up in talking about politics or ethics, is that he makes such a wonderful bad example. It's often been said that the Germans voted the Nazis in democratically, but that's not really true. It only happened after leaders on the Left had been killed, beaten, intimidated, etc., giving the Nazis, if not a majority, at least the largest bloc. Then they were handed the chancellorship and made themselves the single party. That happened in various Communist countries also. "Bolsheviks" means "majority" (same root as Bolshoi = big), but they weren't. But they took over anyway, then outlawed all opposition.

And that also is the way things are done on Wikipedia. There is no Conservative Party, no Reform Party. No Progressive party. No Jimbo-is-always-right Party (at least by name). No parties are permitted. They don't even have a named Party, and pretend they don't have one at all (the Jimbo is God party however, rules). They pick off leaders of the opposition on any major point, target them as "disruptive influences" or neutralize them with other smears. If necessary, they suppress their evidence. Cla68 is merely the last case of many. THEN, they "vote." And the vote is invariably to Do Nothing and follow the status quo. Jimbo wouldn't let them make any major changes in named policy anyway.

To paraphrase Churchill, democracy's an ugly business, but other methods are uglier (at least on large scales. For small scales where everyone knows everyone else well, benevolent dictatorship works okay sometimes, ala families; but it doesn't, well, scale well). Wikipedia has a problem in that by instituting anonymity, they've made democracy impossible along with expertise-checking. So they're in the soup. And, making a virtue of necessity, will NOT admit it.

But you can bet that if Jimbo is ever required to change WP's policies by law, or pressure, or from having sold it off and having to answer to investors, the new policies will be sold as having come "from the people" ("Ordinary Wikipedians"). And they'll be sold as the best thing since sliced bread. And as having "Just been thought of-- the answers we've been searching for all the time, but nobody had previously considered." The bastards.

If we hadn't seen this so much and for so long in human history, it would be worse. But actually, it's pretty much the same-old, same-old of human tribal existence. It's true democracy that is the (relatively) New Thing in human culture, and still hasn't spread to all points. Yes the tradition has come up in Greece and Iceland and so on, but it hasn't been the norm until after WW II. And we're still fighting the fight, all across the globe and on the internets, too.

-Milt

That is exactly the problem. Many issues are too complex for someone like JzG, and one needs to have extensive experience to grasp them.

In the complex case of Angela Kennedy and the ME/CFS epsiode, JzG declared by fiat that the opinions of certain researchers and patient groups were "kook theories" because they disagreed with the theory of one government appointed medical adviser. (Mainly though because radical activists in support of these theories pissed him off). But if one is up-to-speed with the history and ambiguities of both the illness, and the role of the adviser, a right minded person can only conclude that JzG made a big error.