| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | fringe theories |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | 11:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Unknown |
What's the conflict?
There are a lot of topics in which there exists a mainstream view and a minority view. Wikipedia has very elaborate policies on how to deal with this. However, editors are in disagreement in their interpretation. Some editors, who seem to sympathize with the mainstream view, are writing articles as if the mainstream view is the same as the truth, and the minority view as an indignant, inferior view, held only by lunatics and nutcases or otherwise confused people.
This approach *can* be quite appropriate for tiny minority views such as "the earth is flat", but gives rise to problems and conflicts where the minority view is held by large groups of people.
In e.g. September 11, 2001 attacks, editors are going so far as to delete information provided by the US government when the minority view would claim that such info supports their viewpoint. This deleting leads to incomplete articles which, per definition, will support the mainstream view and the mainstream view alone. I would say this is not neutral behaviour.
For mediation, I would propose to try and find common ground among editors concerning the purpose of the rules of wikipedia: are they aiming to create neutral, well-balanced, informative articles, or are they there to make sure we are not laughed at by people who hold a majority view? I believe we can write about minority views in a neutral way, describing their content without trying to ridicule them at the same time. And if a minority view is prominent enough, it should be given fair coverage in any article about the same subject.
What quality are we striving for? Reproducing majority views, ridiculing all other knowledge, or do we want to give our readers an impartial insight into all information which has RS?
— Xiutwel ♥ (msg) 11:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Please note that Chetblong banned me half a year ago from 9/11-related articles so I cannot discuss at those pages anymore.
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | fringe theories |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | 11:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | Unknown |
What's the conflict?
There are a lot of topics in which there exists a mainstream view and a minority view. Wikipedia has very elaborate policies on how to deal with this. However, editors are in disagreement in their interpretation. Some editors, who seem to sympathize with the mainstream view, are writing articles as if the mainstream view is the same as the truth, and the minority view as an indignant, inferior view, held only by lunatics and nutcases or otherwise confused people.
This approach *can* be quite appropriate for tiny minority views such as "the earth is flat", but gives rise to problems and conflicts where the minority view is held by large groups of people.
In e.g. September 11, 2001 attacks, editors are going so far as to delete information provided by the US government when the minority view would claim that such info supports their viewpoint. This deleting leads to incomplete articles which, per definition, will support the mainstream view and the mainstream view alone. I would say this is not neutral behaviour.
For mediation, I would propose to try and find common ground among editors concerning the purpose of the rules of wikipedia: are they aiming to create neutral, well-balanced, informative articles, or are they there to make sure we are not laughed at by people who hold a majority view? I believe we can write about minority views in a neutral way, describing their content without trying to ridicule them at the same time. And if a minority view is prominent enough, it should be given fair coverage in any article about the same subject.
What quality are we striving for? Reproducing majority views, ridiculing all other knowledge, or do we want to give our readers an impartial insight into all information which has RS?
— Xiutwel ♥ (msg) 11:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Please note that Chetblong banned me half a year ago from 9/11-related articles so I cannot discuss at those pages anymore.