[WikiEN-l] CSD T1

Tue May 16 12:05:34 UTC 2006

On 5/16/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Peter Mackay wrote:
> >>Jimbo's word on the matter:
> >>
> >>   The point is, we don't act *in Wikipedia* as a Democrat, a
> >>   Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are
> >>   Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral.
> >
> > With all due respect to you and Jimbo, that's not the way it happens.
> > Thoughtful, loving, neutral, touchy-feely gets good marks, but editors don't
> > suddenly turn into opinionless automatons. Nor do we want them to. We want
> > Republicans to have input into articles on the Republican Party. We just
> > don't want it to be Republican propaganda.
>
> With all due respect to you, I think you're slightly misinterpreting
> what Jimbo (and I) actually mean. I don't think either of us are
> suggesting that editors should be 'opinionless automatons', just that
> they shouldn't let their opinions influence the way they write articles.
>
I'd say that's pretty much impossible.  If nothing else, what you
believe is going to affect what you know, and that's going to have a
significant influence on the way you write an article.  IMO the way
Wikipedians should produce an NPOV article is through the consensus of
people with multiple points of view.  Templates regarding points of
view can very much support this.

That isn't to say that I think a template which says "This user think
George W. Bush is a moron" is an example of such a template.  Actually
I'd say a person using such a template is showing a lack of the skills
needed to work with others.  But "This user is an atheist", or "This
user is a Linux user", on the other hand, I think is not only
non-harmful, I think it is helpful.

Again just my opinion, but I don't think there's a consensus on this
matter, and his majesty Jimbo has explicitly stated that he has not
made an edict on the matter, so speedy deletion should be out of the
question.

Anthony