Nationalist POV-pushing on Wikpedia: what to do? - WikiEN-l

9 Aug 2004

David Gerard wrote:

...
  Nationalist POV pushing is becoming a real problem on

 Wikipedia. Particularly in cases where it appears 
 semi-official, as with these cases and with User:Levzur on 
 Georgia-related articles. I suspect a series of AC rulings as 
 we go isn't really the best way to approach the problem. What 
 can we do abouthis sort of thing? Gdansk/Danzig is just the tip of it. 
The only thing we can do about it is what we've always done about it,
and it's the best solution anyway:

DESCRIBE EACH SIDE'S POV

Say that according to _this_ group of nationalists, the situation is
like this. Then say that according to _that_ group of nationalists, the
situation is like that.

Here's an example, from a different controversy. Gay rights groups
generally maintain that the homosexual population of the US and/or UK is
at ten percent (10%). Conservatives say it's much lower: one or two
percent (1% to 2%) for males, two or three percent (2% to 3%) for
females.

So what should the Wikipedia article say? Should it endorse the side
which is obviously right? No, because it's a disputed matter. Each side
touts its own 'objective' scientific studies and asserts that they are
being totally sincere about "just wanting to tell the truth" about the
situation.

Enter the NPOV policy:

*According to the HRC, the US male homosexual percentage is 10% (or
whatever their website or books say)
*According to NARTH, the percentage is 1% to 2%.

We can also say:

*The general public is more sympathetic to HRC's views, and the higher
figure is generally used by mainstream journalists. 
*Moreover, [[gay rights]] activists dismiss NARTH's research as
hopelessly biased due to the groups perceived "anti-gay" prejudice.

I didn't check just now, but I think that's pretty much how the
Wikipedia describes the topic now.

I think we should handle all Nationalist POV the same way: describe each
POV, and possibly indicate how widely held it is.

Ed Poor