[WikiEN-l] Re: Challenge to Sheldon Rampton re: global warming

Sat Feb 1 06:46:28 UTC 2003

Ed Poor wrote:

>  > Hey, speaking of disingenuous answers, how about applying the NPOV to the
>>  [[global warming]] article? Are you able to step back from your advocacy and
>  > be neutral for a few minutes, and help us make a balanced article there?

And Erik Moeller replied:

>Ed, why this personal attack ("speaking of disingenuous answers"), and why
>on the mailing list? "Step back from your advocacy" - which advocacy? 
>Sheldon has not made a single edit to the global warming article. His last 
>major contribution is from a week ago and unrelated. Since Sheldon joined
>the project, you have repeatedly attacked him, also on Talk pages.

Thanks, Erik, for rising to my defense. I should point out, however, 
that I *have* made a "single edit" to the global warming article. I 
made the edit on December 18 under IP # 208.171.49.198. It's a fairly 
minor edit, and I wasn't logged in under my user ID at the time 
because I had only begun using Wikipedia a few days previously and 
wasn't accustomed yet to the habit of logging in.

I must say, though, that I find it remarkably hypocritical for Ed to 
accuse *me* of being disingenous with regard to inserting a POV. I'm 
not going to debate him here about the scientific evidence on global 
warming, but it's very clear that he has been assiduously lobbying to 
inject his point of view into the article - a point of view that he 
expressed quite clearly in the Talk page, where he stated, "The whole 
global warming thing is a hoax, and 'warmers' have used statistical 
manipulation (i.e., lied) to bolster their arguments." Clearly, when 
someone resorts to calling other people liars, that's a strong point 
of view, and virtually every edit that Ed has made to this article is 
an attempt to inject this point of view by challenging the 
scientificity of the global warming hypothesis and impugning the 
motives of its proponents.

Ed has also injected a point of view into his articles about Sun 
Myung Moon and the Unification Church. The article about Moon reads 
more like worshipful hagiography than a serious attempt at biography. 
It gushes about his "cheerful attitude" and "intolerance of 
injustice," and states that Moon "had a vision or revelation of Jesus 
Christ while praying on top of a tall hill," as though this were a 
documented fact. The article on "Sun Myung Moon/tax case" consists 
primarily of Moon's defense arguments and even includes a 
first-person statement by Ed in which he first states as fact an 
undocumented claim that the government made an offer to "drop all the 
charges," and then writes that this is "a story circulated among us 
UC members." It's clearly POV and a violation of Wikipedia policy to 
inject first-person commentary based on church gossip into the actual 
text of articles.

These examples demonstrate a dilemma that is bound to arise 
occasionally when attempting to write from a "neutral point of view." 
When someone believes passionately in their point of view (as Ed 
clearly does with regard to both global warming and the Unification 
Church), it becomes difficult for them to distinguish between their 
strongly-held beliefs and a NPOV. In the case of Rev. Moon, Ed seems 
incapable of even *attempting* to draft a neutral text. In the case 
of global warming, his version of "neutrality" consists of tortured 
equal weight to skeptics and global warming proponents alike, while 
constantly impugning the alleged "environmentalist bias" of global 
warming proponents. In reality, this forced "balance" is no more 
inherently neutral than it would be for Wikipedia to give Nazi 
Holocaust deniers the same weight and credence as it gives to 
Holocaust historians, while insinuating that the people who believe 
in the Holocaust are Jews and Jew-lovers.

I don't fault Ed for having some ideological blind spots. I'm sure I 
have my own. However, I strongly disagree with his absurd notion that 
I have some personal responsibility to do his dirty work for him by 
inserting arguments with which I do not agree into the global warming 
article. He wrote:

>One of the best ways to attain neutrality in a contentious article 
>is for a person who believes passionately in one side to focus on 
>making the best case for the OTHER SIDE. If you could do this, it 
>would be a big help.

Since I am sure that Ed doesn't want us to think he's a hypocrite, I 
am sure that he will set an example for us all by editing his 
articles about Rev. Moon so that they "focus on making the best case" 
for arguments that Moon is a fraud, tax cheat, manipulative cult 
leader, failure as a father and behind-the-scenes backer of 
Nicaraguan contras and North Korean politicians who lives in 
ostentatious wealth while expecting his followers to live in poverty. 
I would do this myself, except that I'm not really interested in 
writing about the Unification Church. And since Ed "believes 
passionately" in his church, one of the "best ways to attain 
neutrality" would be to have him be the one who makes these arguments.
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------