[WikiEN-l] Our credibility is questioned

Thu Nov 6 05:07:40 UTC 2003

> She sounds like an activist who will interpret anything neutral
> as taking a position against, and who's lost so much perspective
> that a single person's statement is taken as the official word. 

Allow me to disagree. I joined this mailing list in order to learn
about what to post and how to word articles and also to bring to the
attention of someone who can do something about the problems I've
been facing.

I too was under the impression that the aim of Wikipedia was to 
present things in an encyclopediac fashion. Admittedly, it is
difficult to achieve this on issues such as partial-birth abortion.
However, when Wikipedia allows allegations ragrding verifiable events
(especially the allegations of political oppnents) to be posted as 
a legitimate point of view, the credibility of Wikipedia takes a
beating.

On issues which are not points of view, why not let the verifiable
facts speak for themselves? Follow the old dictum of "show, don't
tell."

In particular, I've been having problems regarding contributions I've
made on India. I've tried to stick to verifiable facts and present
things in an encyclopedic manner, but there seem to be 3 members
who keep watch on what I'm posting and revert it to their version
which carries nothing but what can be classified as propaganda of
the Communist Party of India(Marxist). These people add allegations
by this party as a part of an article. 

Initially, I was told that representing all points of views was 
considered neutral on Wikipedia and I believed it, even though I
was startled that it could be the case. I would have liked to see
a version which presented issues without jingoism in an encyclopedic
manner. In any case, I accepted the claim that if an issue has N 
views, all N views are represented on Wikipedia.
However, when I posted a point of view they didn't like, it was 
removed by them!

They've been posting opinions as facts and there is another strategy
they follow. If I have anything positive to say about India, they
come up with "some people think this, others claim that" kind of
article to obfuscate the issue. If there is something negative, they
gleefully make assertions. I am sorry to say that if this is what
neutrality is about, Wikipedia will not have any credibility.

I am open to minute scrutiny of my contributions and removal of 
points which are unacceptable (in fact, when someone pointed out some 
flaws in my version, I accepted them and removed them since I wanted 
to make it better.) For the record, my id is LibertarianAnarchist and
you may check out my posts and subject them to scrutiny by someone
who is really neutral and knowledgeable. 

I agree that controversial positions are tough to decide on, but
revising history by writing fiction and their own allegations and 
then armtwisting me by claiming that it is controversial since they
have a particular point of view?

I hope Wikipedia will not become a Hindu/India hating site.

Thanks,
A sincere contributor

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com