[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Mon Mar 21 01:25:49 UTC 2005

-------------- Original message -------------- 
> And it doesn't help that whenever Silverback has an opportunity, he 
> belittles our policies. Silverback, your own "definition" of capitalism 
> only further muddies the waters. As you should know by now, your own 
> definition of capitalism (like mine, or RJII's) is irrelevant here. We are 
> researching an encyclopedia, and we are committed to NPOV and NOR. That 
> means providing different people's definitions of capitalism in a 
> verifiable way. 

Marx was complementary of capitalism for demonstrating that wealth was
not static but could be created.  If one were to point out that Marx appreciated
that capitalism was not a zero sum game, would one be doing original research
because he is using language that did not exist in Marx's time, or is he merely
being descriptive in modern language of Marx's position?   When does mere
description or translation (in this case into modern language) become original
research?

Scientists often define their terms at the beginning of a publication.  More precision
or a specific nuance of a term is needed in order to communicate clearly, sometimes
the "definition" is simply to rule out specific possible ambiguous interpretations of
the term.  The term still contains a recognizable essence of the original meaning,
but has become a term of art.   The recognizable essence may not be the same
essence that YOU would have selected, but you should adopt that meaning
when reading the rest of the paper.   Now if at the end, in the conclusions,
the author tries to make rhetorical generalizations to the usual definition of
the term, you are entitled to object.

Yes, I define terms, or rather select reductionists nuances of terms in an
attempt at communication, but if you insist for instance that capitalism is
a subset of fascism (BTW, you haven't as far as I know, perhaps "mercantilism"
would be a better example), you are trying to denigrate and not communicate.

What would you say the marxist definition of capitalism is?  Or do you think
he would avoid giving one as a rhetorical technique to avoid being pinned
down and put on the defensive?

                   -- Silverback