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

Adrian Tymes wingcat at pacbell.net
Tue Jul 5 18:53:01 UTC 2005


--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia's NPOV is a POV that is determined by the people who run
> Wikipedia,

This is true.

> much as MSM purport their editorial slant is 'moderate'
> and
> 'middle-of-the-road', or at their most honest "slightly left of
> center", when in fact they are significantly left leaning and fascist
> tending.

This is not true, at least of Wikipedia.

> Establishing our own Extrowiki would allow us to establishour own
> NPOV
> as specifically extropic in outlook.

You're not getting the concept of a "Neutral" Point Of View.  It's not
extropic, it's not fascist, it's not anything like that.  It exists
completely outside of those axis.  It's trying to get at what really
happened - a simple statement of the facts, without any labelling
unless the labelled parties themselves would agree to it (or there is
general agreement by institutions set up to judge these things, like
the courts - at least, in matters where most people would trust the
courts).

Specifically, your issue with them is that you put up a rant about how
certain people and organizations are "Neo-Luddite", which label would
be in dispute.  You then refused to acknowledge that Wikipedians don't
want such politics in their entries - and that, rightly or wrongly,
they believe there is a way to state the facts that is completely free
of said politics.  The Wikipedians would like an article saying what
Neo-Luddism is, with relevant facts about the movement per se (which
can include common criticisms, which I'm sure we can easily provide),
without using it as a vehicle to denounce specific people and
organizations.

For example, see this bit I added: "Those who are called neo-luddites
tend to call themselves greens, conservatives, or other labels, but
with an anti-technology focus.  This causes friction with pro-tech
greens and others, who sometimes cite the negative environmental
consequences of neo-luddites' goals to challenge their right to call
themselves "green"."  This basic statement of facts, while roundly
denouncing neo-luddism, doesn't actually target anyone, and so has been
left in place - even defended by others.

If you want to denounce specific people and organizations, the first
step is to move *all* such discussion to pages specifically about said
people and organizations.  The second step is to argue the case against
them without any resort to loaded terms or anything else but the bare
facts, presented as unemotionally as possible.  Think like someone
reporting lists of crimes to a UN human rights commission.  Also see
their page on "moral panic" and related terms for tactics *not* to
employ: one aspect of their goals is to defuse, rather than to inflame,
moral panics by dousing hype and exaggerations with facts.

I believe you could learn from them if, instead of angrily rejecting
their position, you were to study their guides as to how to present
statements of fact.  Indeed, if you adopted elements of their style, I
suspect you would be able to persuade many more people, both inside ExI
and among the general public, of the rightness of your points of view.



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list