[extropy-chat] Wikipedia's NPOV (was Re: themes in anti-transhumanist arguments)

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I didn't say it was, I said it was of MSM, which is "main stream
> media".

Ah, okay.  Just making sure.  Thanks for the correction.

> This is a silly and improbable as believing in the easter bunny. It
> is
> impossible to state 'facts' in a world when nobody agrees on what the
> 'facts' are.

Actually...it is.  ^_^

There are many tricks and techniques to it.  Finding a way to speak the
undisputed truth when many basic facts are in dispute is a skill in
itself, much like (for example) computer programming.  It usually
requires more than one mind, since even the best-trained single mind
will still often put in some bias - thus the push for and success of
collaborative efforts, like Wikipedia.  But it also requires tricks and
techniques on the individual level.  A couple of the basics are trying
to find what facts *are* generally agreed upon (for instance, most
people agree that "1+1=2", while there is less agreement on "the Earth
was created from nothing within the past 10,000 years"), and more
importantly, taking the attitude of searching for the truth (and
contributing your piece of the puzzle, as you see it) rather than
assuming you know the truth - because no one (not you, not me, not
anyone we know, not anyone we don't know, *no one*) ever knows the
compete truth.

> For example, the accepted dictionary definition of
> 'fascism' is a philosophy that advocates the state allowing private
> property, but dictating who can own it and how they use it,

Some dictionaries define it that way, but it definitely isn't how I
hear it used in public use.  This may come as a shock, but even
dictionaries aren't always the last word in saying what words mean - no
matter how good of an attempt they often make.  Especially since
different dictionaries give different definitions.  From
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism :

1. often Fascism
  1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under
     a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the
     opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy
     of belligerent nationalism and racism.
  2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a
     system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

As the focus is on oppression, not private property per se (private
property may be one tool for oppression, but not the only one), this
seems to be far different from your dictionary's definition.
Conclusion: just because you see it in one dictionary, doesn't always
mean it's so.

> yet the
> biased people on wikipedia who claim to be more NPOV refuse to define
> political policies that fit the above definition as 'fascist'.

Because they're using their own dictionaries.  As a guess, I think the
definition you gave would be closer to their definition of "communist"
than of "fascist".  A non-oppressive communist government can be
envisioned and dreamt of, and thus discussed, even if in practice
communism seems to inherently give rise to oppression (and thus be
"fascist" in both your and their senses of the term).

> If an act is a crime, stating it is a crime is not denouncing. If a
> person's actions or statements are generally thought negatively of by
> the general population, words like 'infamous' or 'notorious' are not
> POV, they are purely descriptive. If something fits the dictionary
> definition of a word, then you can call it or describe it with that
> word.

All three of these, while true, can be used to give the appearance of
justification to things they do not in fact justify, if one takes a
slightly blind eye to certain aspects.  For example (not saying you did
these, just that they are common mistakes):

\* Whether or not some act is in fact a crime may be in dispute, as is
  whether or not a certain person did indeed commit that act.  In this
  circumstance, it would not necessarily be correct that the person
  committed a crime.  It might be correct to say that the person is
  suspected or accused of a crime, though.

* If a small subset of the general population to which you happen to
  belong - for example, just Extropians or even just all transhumanists
  - considers a certain act negatively, that is a far cry from the
  general population seeing the same act negatively.  For instance, it
  is quite possible that a greater number of human beings see the
  Precautionary Principle in a positive light than in a negative light.
  We may attempt to change that, but in the mean time, it would not be
  purely descriptive to say that a certain person or organization is
  "infamous" for using the Precautionary Principle a lot, unless you
  are clearly speaking from or about the POV of a group (like
  transhumanists) which would have that perception - which is almost
  never the case in a Wikipedia article.  The solution here is to
  honestly see things from the uninvolved, and often un- or only
  slightly educated (with respect to this issue), person's POV.  This
  can be extremely difficult for most people, as it absolutely requires
  setting aside (and recognizing!) one's personal beliefs and
  prejudices.

* As pointed out above, just because something technically fits one
  dictionary definition, does not always mean that it fits the
  definition that most people use.  If you're getting pushback on the
  application of a particular word, the most likely cause is that the
  definition you were using conflicts with the definition those who
  take exception are using.  In this case, one of the early important
  steps to defusing and refining is to ask them what their definition
  is.  If there is a disagreement, *then* maybe cite your definition -
  in the unusual case that they could be persuaded to change
  definitions.  Usually, you have to use your audience's definitions,
  with no chance to make up your own (unless you're trying to confuse
  the issue - which some politicians and lawyers do for a living, but
  which would probably just get bad results for us).

You might want to spend some time reading and mulling over
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
in particular the sections "An example" (especially the bit about how
we don't need to say that "so-and-so is evil" when we can present
evidence that speaks for itself - which is one advantage transhumanists
often have over neo-luddites!), "There's no such thing as objectivity",
"Morally offensive views" (making sure to note what we find morally
offensive, like the Precautionary Principle), "Giving "equal
validity"", "Making necessary assumptions", and "Writing for the
"enemy" POV".