[WikiEN-l] Re: Challenge to Sheldon Rampton re: global warming

Mon Feb 3 14:19:31 UTC 2003

Everyone take a deep breath.  It was pretty out of character for Ed to
post a sharp remark like that, and I think he'll quickly make things
right with Sheldon.

And Ed has always, more than just about any of us, expressed a firm
commitment to NPOV.  Attacking his biases is something he will likely
welcome, as an opportunity to improve an article.

Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> It gushes about his "cheerful attitude" and "intolerance of
> injustice," and states that Moon "had a vision or revelation of
> Jesus Christ while praying on top of a tall hill," as though this
> were a documented fact.

How do we deal with similar claims/stories for other religious
figures?  It seems pretty easy to fix, for example by saying, "In
1969, Moon said that he had had a vision or revelation of Jesus Christ
while praying on top of a tall hill".  This is a nice formulation
because it limits us to making a simple uncontroversial claim, without
projecting any kind of attitude of belief or disbelief.

Another reformulation might say something like "Moon allegedly had a
vision or revelation", but I like my version above, better, because
the word "allegedly" has some baggage.

> It's clearly POV and a violation of Wikipedia policy to inject
> first-person commentary based on church gossip into the actual text
> of articles.

Maybe, unless this gossip is documented somewhere as having actually
happened.  I mean, asserting the content of the gossip as fact isn't
good, but reporting on the gossip is fine, if it was important and
widespread.

> I don't fault Ed for having some ideological blind spots. I'm sure I 
> have my own. However, I strongly disagree with his absurd notion that 
> I have some personal responsibility to do his dirty work for him by 
> inserting arguments with which I do not agree into the global warming 
> article.

But I think this is a misreading.  I think that his idea is a very
good one.  All of us, if we are writing in an area where we know we
have some strong feelings, should try *hard* to formulate the
arguments of the opponents as best we can.

There are at least two views of how wikipedia articles should be
written -- the competitive view and the co-operative view.  Ed
is merely (and correctly, I think) advocating for the co-operative
view.

On the competitive view, partisans go at it and fight until the fight
has gone out of all sides, and the result is an article that no one
hates too much.  On the co-operative view, partisans try really hard
to please _each other_ with a presentation that's fair to all sides.

The co-operative method is faster, and also less exhausting in the
long run.

> am sure that he will set an example for us all by editing his 
> articles about Rev. Moon so that they "focus on making the best case" 
> for arguments... [against Moon]

In my experience, Ed has always set an example for us.

--Jimbo