Jimbo recently offered some criticism regarding the article on the recent election in Equatorial Guinea. That article was primarily written by me, and it was written in strict accordance with the NPOV policy; government and opposition positions were both represented without any explicit or implicit judgment. (Here is the version he's criticizing.) But Jimbo says: "There are widespread news reports that this election was a farce, and yet we are currently reporting it with a straight face." He goes on to list criticisms of the election that were reported in the international press--essentially the same criticisms that were already described in the article, in NPOV form. I can only assume that Jimbo believes the NPOV policy should be abrogated in this particular case, because he thinks the election was obviously rigged and therefore the position held by the government and its supporters is a matter of no consequence, as if they were flat-earthers who don't even qualify as a "significant minority" POV.

Perhaps he is playing the role of the propagandist. If you take a side and argue it, you will naturally get some people on your side simply because some people have no strong internal decision process and simply side who whoever is talking. That's how propaganda works, as I see it. Not because it's right, just because it's present.

Perhaps he feels like the weight of the opposition voice should be stronger, while the weight of the government voice should be weaker.

It is difficult to judge this, though it is probably something of an indictment that a pronouncement from Jimbo can completely change the tenor of an article from one that calmly noted that there was fraud to one that considered that the only notable thing about the election was that it was fraudulent.

I can't take a view on the article, but it does not inspire confidence in the Wikipedia editorial process - it simply raises the question of who has been getting at Jimbo for him to suddenly pronounce on this fairly obscure article.

There's no mention of any controversy in the lead, which is odd, and the only mention of international observers (as distinct from opposition politicians) criticizing the election's fairness is the sentence "Observers noted irregularites in the election", which is buried in the last section. There's also a comment from Almani Cyllah earlier on, but he almost seems to be blaming the opposition parties.

I find it odd that Jimbo bothered to comment there, as Dogbiscuit says, but I think he has something of a point.

I cannot imagine where you got that idea.

Hmm, is it that the article has been changing since you read it as your first comment doesn't match the article as it stands.

The other interest to extract from this would be to say that Everyking took an editorial stance where he felt that the balance was right. Jimbo took an editorial stance (but did not "so fix it", but an acolyte stepped in under royal protection). I didn't see a process of negotiation to arrive at a new editorial stance, just the imposition of an alternative viewpoint which I note that a user under ArbCom sanctions* - EK - objects to.

Who is to say which editorial stance was correct? (Discuss)


*Just for the wind up value EK, but will it become part of the debate?

I was working off this version, which Everyking says (above) is the same one that Jimbo was critiquing.

Ah, sorry, didn't quite grasp that. The general tone at that point has a critical air, and perhaps the balance of the lead does not reflect the article as a whole, however, in a day or so the article has swung to being about "Criticisms of the Equatorial Guinean presidential election" which osrt of turns this into a campaign for electoral reform in Guinea rather than an encyclopedic article, more a news article in fact.

I have a special fondness for Equatorial Guinea, since my birthday falls on the same day as its Independence Day. In retrospect, I have should have taken up citizenship there instead of traveling on a Mozambican passport.



Nice



If Jimbo wants "Put on a Happy Face," he can buy us tickets to the "Bye Bye Birdie" revival on Broadway.



Not that anyone in Equatorial Guinea is actually reading the English version of Wikipedia, of course.

The main languages spoken are Spanish, French and pidgin English (i.e. Simple Wikipedia)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855611.html

Simple Wikipedia is actually an example of pigeon English -- strictly for the birds!

Ah yes, it all makes sense now.


So was the U.S. in 2000, what's your point?

I didn't have any problem with adding material to the intro--the intro was obviously short and inadequate. Ideally the intro would briefly discuss the opposition criticisms as well as the government's defense of the election. My objection is to this suggestion that the article was a whitewash, when in fact the article was already full of opposition criticisms--they were given at least as much space as the government and ruling party's positions. For example:

"Micó Abogo criticized the election date, arguing that the government intended to deprive the opposition of adequate time to prepare for the election by announcing the date only 45 days in advance. He said that his party, the Convergence for Social Democracy (CPDS), would participate in the election, along with other opposition parties, although he alleged that the ruling Democratic Party of Equatorial Guinea (PDGE) was planning fraud."

"Meanwhile, Mico Abogo denounced the government as oppressive and said that it won elections only through fraud. He also said that oil wealth had only served to enrich the small elite surrounding Obiang and that it helped to reinforce the regime."

"Popular Action of Equatorial Guinea candidate Carmelo Mba Bacale announced on 28 November that he had decided to boycott the election. He alleged that the PDGE was planning fraud, saying that PDGE members were heading polling stations as well as the electoral commission."

"Mico Abogo denounced the conduct of the election, saying that fraud and manipulation were rife, and he declared that he would not accept the official results."

Admittedly the article didn't discuss international reaction very much, but in light of the above I don't see how anyone could view it as a whitewash. Maybe Jimbo only read the intro?

Oh, the opposition was given ample space, no question. But if I'm reading that article, my though process goes something like this:
1. 97%? Jesus, was that election fair?
2. The government thinks it was. No surprise there.
3. The opposition claims otherwise. That's not really surprising either.
4. I wonder what international observers think?

According to some of Jimbo's links, international observers were pretty critical of the election as well, and I think that's the point that was under-emphasized.