(a rather good sumary)
Actually, the question is about the Pinochet article, not some other spinoff article.
It's one of the interesting aspects of Wikipedia
that
conflicts on wordings often are focused to one or a
few articles at a time.
What is even more interesting is that some people make it sound as though quibbling on the
wording is no big deal, but will not allow the wording to go against what they want.
If the wording is no big deal, why not allow 172's choice of words?
I think administrators' role is exaggerated by
Libertarian.
Not true. I've been frustrated at the behavior of the admins.
In one edit-war, I was naive to assume that mediation meant
that they would look into the merits of the case.
Instead, I was accused of McCarthyism by ignorant Americans
who refused to believe that there is a Communist Party in India.
The Communist who was posting propaganda had his way on Wikipedia
though he was wriing fiction. I was clearly superior and he was
inferior which is proved by the fact that he learnt stuff from the
discussion page. He was such a fool that he did not know that a
candidate who ran for President of India on the Marxist ticket
was a Communist Party member. He kept introducing the word 'alleged'
which is idiotic.
The main point of contention was that a firebombing of a train
by Muslims was called a "spontaneous riot" and a story in chain mail
which circulated on the net among Muslims was quoted (it is still
quoted) as true despite the fact that it was proved wrong when
journalists called up the "eyewitness" whose phone number was part
of that chain mail! That journalist felt harassed at the number of
phone calls he was receiving and stated that he had actually reported
the opposite of what went on in that chain mail.
Yet, Wikipedia perpetrates the myth that the firebombing was
provoked by some hindus. If only the Wikipedia folks also used
their brains while mediating, they will realize that people don't
carry cans of petrol and diesel to spontaneously react. It is
simply an idiotic proposition to say that people carry petrol
bombs at all times.
Anyway, I'm doing my part. These days I have stopped contributing
to Wikipedia. Instead, I look for such glaring errors and use them
to poison the minds of journalists I know. I tell them that Wikipedia
is a failed effort and give these errors as proof. I point to ongoing
edit-wars and give it as proof that it is no better than a discussion
group.
One journalist has told me that he intends writing about the dangers
of relying on information gleaned from the net and has told me that
he will sneak in a line about Wikipedia as an example of an unreliable
source.
But we have to be aware of Wikipedia's inherent
US-centricism, and how this may be a serious disadvantage
for Wikipedia's credibility outside of the Anglo-Saxon world.
That US-centricism makes it racist whether you realize it or
not. It makes it appear that Wikipedia opposes Communists and
Islamofascists when it suits the Americans, but takes their
side when other races and religions are involved. In any case,
Wikipedia can write racist stuff and claim that Hindus are the
most evil people on earth, but it can't change the truth
that Hindus don't hijack planes and slam them into buildings
or blow up innocent people.
You're right about credibility outside the Anglo-Saxon world.
Now I guess I need to focus inside the Anglo-Saxon world.
I need to befriend a few journalists in the Anglo-Saxon
world and poison their minds too. I shall use errors on Wikipedia
to claim that "wannabe-academics" who failed to do well in academics
contribute to it and it is full of urban legends.
-libertarian
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web -
http://www.myway.com