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

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

> --- 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.

I didn't say it was, I said it was of MSM, which is "main stream
media". Wikipedia's slant is somewhere in the area of left-liberal
anarchist with significant players who are rabid left-liberals who are
skilled at making articles appear ostensibly NPOV but careful semantic
analysis shows is still significantly left-leaning, particularly of the
verbs, adverbs and adjectives used to describe left versus right
arguments.

> 
> > 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).

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

> 
> 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.

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.


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com