[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 4, Issue 51

Sat Nov 15 15:36:57 UTC 2003

----- Original Message ----- 

From: <wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org>> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003
21:09:07 -0600
> From: Sheldon Rampton <sheldon.rampton at verizon.net>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: NPOV

> Regarding the idea of simply "reporting things that really exist,"
> Cunctator  wrote:
>
> >Yes. Fortunately we can rely on the pool of perfectly accurate,
> >non-propagandizing, value-judgmentless historical references to do so.
> >Oops, they don't exist.
>
> Actually, they do. For example, "Napoleon Bonaparte died on May 5,
> 1821" is a statement whose accuracy no one seriously disputes, and it
> doesn't carry any particular propaganda or value judgments. Whether
> you believe that Napoleon was a great leader or a foolish despot,
> you're bound to agree on the date of his death.

Thing is, once you start using words like "great" and "foolish", you're
not reporting facts, you're quite obviously reporting personal value
judgments. I know, you already know that.

> Unfortunately, there are many other things about history and the
> world that are important enough to deserve inclusion in the Wikipedia
> that are _not_ this clear-cut.

Then do like the journalists are supposed to do (not like they ever bother
in this modern age of state & corporate propaganda) - don't report as
facts, but as personal value judgments. Attribute to people. There's a
little handbook on journalistic ethics which journalists supposedly use
sometimes to ensure they are always reporting objective fact - maybe we
can find it online somewhere?

Or is that not enough to make it work? What is there, which is not a
personal value judgment, which is also not an objective fact?