[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the news

Wed Aug 4 09:16:28 UTC 2004

Interesting comment Jimbo, which leaves open the possibility that we're 
all suckers ("dumbasses") for voting for _any_ of these people as it 
just encourages them. "Sincere interest in a fair presentation of the 
facts" by those addicted to power is an awfully tenuous assumption 
(hence you end up with organisations with oxymoronic descriptions such 
as "Fox News - fair and balanced").

Christiaan

On 4 Aug 2004, at 5:23 am, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

> It occurs to me that it is entirely possible that a Republican might 
> praise the article precisely because it is neutral and factual.
>
> It is only natural for honest opponents of Kerry's election to feel 
> that a factual description of his record, particularly a factual 
> description that highlights facts that may be relevant but which are 
> not widely discussed in the soundbite-friendly partisan media, helps 
> to educate voters who, being honest, will naturally come to better 
> understand why people oppose Kerry's election.
>
> I am quite sure that many Democratic activists (perhaps the sort who 
> like to call their political opponents "dumbasses", not naming any 
> names here) will read our Bush article with similar joy, due to it 
> naming some facts that these partisans feel are scandalous, but which
> Bush supporters may greet with either a yawn or even admiration.
>
> The test of NPOV is not "does one side really like it?"  because that 
> assumes bad faith, that the only reason someone could like an article 
> is that it is biased.
>
> The test of NPOV is "do both sides like it?"  This is assuming good 
> faith, i.e. that all sides of any controversial issue are typically 
> good people who are not "dumbasses" and who have a sincere interest in 
> a fair presentation of the facts.
>
> --Jimbo