On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > I wrote: > >> If the subject is controversial, you can [have] two articles, one by >> supporters, and one by opponents. Why not? > > > This is against the rules in Wikipedia. They insist that people reach a > compromise taking into accounts all points of view. They want one and only > one article per topic. (Actually, you are not supposed to have a "point of > view.") I do not understand why they have this rule, or why they are so > opposed to articles with distinct, separate points of view. > > It reminds of newspapers and TV news from the 1950s to 1990s, when they > tried hard to be "neutral." Meaning "objective." Some people considered > Walter Cronkite the epitome of reliable neutrality. He had an aura. > > I never thought the newspapers were neutral. Frankly, I prefer the approach > newspapers had in the 19th century and again today, where you knew which > side the editorial staff sympathized with. You could judge how objective > they were by reading different accounts of the same story. > > Incidentally, you do have to give Wikipedia credit for knowing about and > discussing their own weaknesses, such as their fetish for incorporating all > points of view: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise > > The see the problems, but they don't do anything about them. > > - Jed >
It reminds me of the persistent absuse that has occured within some institutions. The abuse persists because it happens behind closed doors, but in the case of wikipedia anonymity serves the function of closed doors. It also reminds me cyber bullying. There are probably (new) laws against cyber bullying that could be applied to wikipedia. Harry
