NPOV is a big lie

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

NPOV is a big lie

Bill Carter
One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV. Wikipedia administrator David Gerard recently wrote on this mailing list, "NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." In fact, Wikipedia is a battleground in which the opinions of the most competitive group win out, rather than some theoretical neutral POV. Many of you are far more knowledgeable about the POV pushers at Wikipedia and know exactly how patently false the NPOV doctrine is.

A Wikipedia article was recently written about Alan Cabal that, in my opinion, met Wikipedia's notability standards beyond a doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article). It was speedy deleted on March 30th, 2009 within hours of being re-created. A deletion review followed which was conducted like a 4th AfD and the outcome was that the speedy delete was upheld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30). Throughout there was talk of keeping one's personal views to oneself. Completely ridiculous considering user Bali ultimate, who nominated the Alan Cabal article for speedy deletion, later admitted that he had been watching its rewrite very closely for weeks and that's why he had pounced! Immediately afterward I looked into David Gerard's aphorism and, looking far back, found that he had said the same thing years ago on another Wikipedia mailing list: "I think NPOV is our greatest
 innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2007-August/029947.html)

Now there is an ongoing discussion in the CounterPunch article about how mere mentions of Alan Cabal are being expunged from the entire website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Expunging_Alan_Cable_.28Alan_Cabal.29). The CounterPunch article already has a sordid history. For example, on
January 28th, 2009, user Jarjam copyedited the CounterPunch article to say, "CounterPunch has also been
criticized for publishing articles by
authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have
defended the pro-Hitler persepective of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. Zundel is the author of 'The Hitle We Loved and Why'."(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=267015135&oldid=263748961). Nearly two months later this "unsourced libellous claim of contributors being pro-Hitler" was removed by user Rd232, on March 22nd 2009 to be exact (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=278994805&oldid=278994056). Instead of getting it right, Alan Cabal's article "Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel" was simply left out of the article and then on April 5th, 2009, user Verbal removed the last mention of Alan Cabal that remained in the CounterPunch article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=281912735&oldid=280865106). David Gerard truly believes there is a NPOV on this website, and has even defended his ownership over his future Barlett quotation: "Mostly I'm the person I know
 of calling it Wikipedia's greatest
innovation ;-p much more so than merely letting anyone edit the
website. Are there others?" (June 2008, David Gerard, http://infoholics-anonymous.blogspot.com/2008/06/changing-world-via-wikipedia.html)

Such a thorough job has been done this past week of wiping Wikipedia clean of any mention of Alan Cabal that even the Wikipedia article for New York Press no longer lists him as a former contributor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=281915790&oldid=275246572). David Gerard so firmly believes that Wikipedia has a NPOV that he can be found repeating again and again, "Wikipedia’s fundamental content policy of Neutral Point of View is, in
my opinion, its greatest innovation - far greater than merely letting
anyone edit the website." ( September 2007, David Gerard) (http://ivo.co.za/2007/09/20/wikipedia-as-efficient-market/) On his blog: "I consider the Neutral Point Of View policy our most important innovation, far more so than letting anyone edit the site." (http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/12/17/rorschach-knols/) (December 2007, David Gerard).

Probably the reason Alan Cabal has been viciously persecuted by Wikipedians for over a year now is because he has defended the freedom of speech of holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. But then again Alan Cabal has written so many controversial articles over the years that I guess Wikipedians could have many reasons for suppressing his biography and work. For the last time, I leave you with another permutation of what is surely David Gerard's greatest quote: "NPOV is Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than letting any idiot edit the website." (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/92817)

Sincerely,
Bill Carter



     
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

David Goodman
I notice that the most bitter disputes tend to be about controversial
journalists. I myself consider him of borderline notability. However,
since the standard for inclusion of a person in article content
content is not the person mentioned being notable, but of being
pertinent and sourced, I reverted the removal from the article on the
NYP article, and warned the person who did it about removal of sourced
material without discussion.

I haven't looked at CounterPunch yet, which has a more complicated history.

We do aim at NPOV, and I and almost everyone at Wikipedia will try to
help achieve it. But obviously with our basic principle of editing
violations cant be prevented--and probably can not all be corrected
either. But we can work towards it.. It takes persistence and
patience.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Bill Carter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV. Wikipedia administrator David Gerard recently wrote on this mailing list, "NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." In fact, Wikipedia is a battleground in which the opinions of the most competitive group win out, rather than some theoretical neutral POV. Many of you are far more knowledgeable about the POV pushers at Wikipedia and know exactly how patently false the NPOV doctrine is.
>
> A Wikipedia article was recently written about Alan Cabal that, in my opinion, met Wikipedia's notability standards beyond a doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article). It was speedy deleted on March 30th, 2009 within hours of being re-created. A deletion review followed which was conducted like a 4th AfD and the outcome was that the speedy delete was upheld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30). Throughout there was talk of keeping one's personal views to oneself. Completely ridiculous considering user Bali ultimate, who nominated the Alan Cabal article for speedy deletion, later admitted that he had been watching its rewrite very closely for weeks and that's why he had pounced! Immediately afterward I looked into David Gerard's aphorism and, looking far back, found that he had said the same thing years ago on another Wikipedia mailing list: "I think NPOV is our greatest
>  innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2007-August/029947.html)
>
> Now there is an ongoing discussion in the CounterPunch article about how mere mentions of Alan Cabal are being expunged from the entire website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Expunging_Alan_Cable_.28Alan_Cabal.29). The CounterPunch article already has a sordid history. For example, on
> January 28th, 2009, user Jarjam copyedited the CounterPunch article to say, "CounterPunch has also been
> criticized for publishing articles by
> authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have
> defended the pro-Hitler persepective of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. Zundel is the author of 'The Hitle We Loved and Why'."(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=267015135&oldid=263748961). Nearly two months later this "unsourced libellous claim of contributors being pro-Hitler" was removed by user Rd232, on March 22nd 2009 to be exact (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=278994805&oldid=278994056). Instead of getting it right, Alan Cabal's article "Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel" was simply left out of the article and then on April 5th, 2009, user Verbal removed the last mention of Alan Cabal that remained in the CounterPunch article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=281912735&oldid=280865106). David Gerard truly believes there is a NPOV on this website, and has even defended his ownership over his future Barlett quotation: "Mostly I'm the person I know
>  of calling it Wikipedia's greatest
> innovation ;-p much more so than merely letting anyone edit the
> website. Are there others?" (June 2008, David Gerard, http://infoholics-anonymous.blogspot.com/2008/06/changing-world-via-wikipedia.html)
>
> Such a thorough job has been done this past week of wiping Wikipedia clean of any mention of Alan Cabal that even the Wikipedia article for New York Press no longer lists him as a former contributor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=281915790&oldid=275246572). David Gerard so firmly believes that Wikipedia has a NPOV that he can be found repeating again and again, "Wikipedia’s fundamental content policy of Neutral Point of View is, in
> my opinion, its greatest innovation - far greater than merely letting
> anyone edit the website." ( September 2007, David Gerard) (http://ivo.co.za/2007/09/20/wikipedia-as-efficient-market/) On his blog: "I consider the Neutral Point Of View policy our most important innovation, far more so than letting anyone edit the site." (http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/12/17/rorschach-knols/) (December 2007, David Gerard).
>
> Probably the reason Alan Cabal has been viciously persecuted by Wikipedians for over a year now is because he has defended the freedom of speech of holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. But then again Alan Cabal has written so many controversial articles over the years that I guess Wikipedians could have many reasons for suppressing his biography and work. For the last time, I leave you with another permutation of what is surely David Gerard's greatest quote: "NPOV is Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than letting any idiot edit the website." (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/92817)
>
> Sincerely,
> Bill Carter
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Tristan Thomas-4
In reply to this post by Bill Carter
I agree that in many instances, there can be a bitter editing war that
doesn't necessarily end up with a NPOV being selected, but in my view,
most of the time, patience & persistence win, leading to most articles
being relatively neutral.  By no means would I say it was perfect &
there are probably things that can be done to improve it, but on the
whole it is one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths; not least because to
the general public who are not editors or administrators or who do not
participate in editing, Wikipedia is seen as a neutral, independent
source of fact.  Sure, there are certain areas that need improvement,
but once the wider Wikipedia community is brought in, as they have now
been, thanks to your highlighting of the problems with Alan Cabal, calm
& common sense tend to prevail.
I disagree with your statement

"One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV"


because I believe *generally* there is a NPOV, with problems arising in
certain instances.

On 09/04/2009 04:54, Bill Carter wrote:

> One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how there is generally a NPOV. Wikipedia administrator David Gerard recently wrote on this mailing list, "NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." In fact, Wikipedia is a battleground in which the opinions of the most competitive group win out, rather than some theoretical neutral POV. Many of you are far more knowledgeable about the POV pushers at Wikipedia and know exactly how patently false the NPOV doctrine is.
>
> A Wikipedia article was recently written about Alan Cabal that, in my opinion, met Wikipedia's notability standards beyond a doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article). It was speedy deleted on March 30th, 2009 within hours of being re-created. A deletion review followed which was conducted like a 4th AfD and the outcome was that the speedy delete was upheld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30). Throughout there was talk of keeping one's personal views to oneself. Completely ridiculous considering user Bali ultimate, who nominated the Alan Cabal article for speedy deletion, later admitted that he had been watching its rewrite very closely for weeks and that's why he had pounced! Immediately afterward I looked into David Gerard's aphorism and, looking far back, found that he had said the same thing years ago on another Wikipedia mailing list: "I think NPOV is our greatest
>   innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2007-August/029947.html)
>
> Now there is an ongoing discussion in the CounterPunch article about how mere mentions of Alan Cabal are being expunged from the entire website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Expunging_Alan_Cable_.28Alan_Cabal.29). The CounterPunch article already has a sordid history. For example, on
> January 28th, 2009, user Jarjam copyedited the CounterPunch article to say, "CounterPunch has also been
> criticized for publishing articles by
> authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have
> defended the pro-Hitler persepective of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest Zundel. Zundel is the author of 'The Hitle We Loved and Why'."(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=267015135&oldid=263748961). Nearly two months later this "unsourced libellous claim of contributors being pro-Hitler" was removed by user Rd232, on March 22nd 2009 to be exact (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=278994805&oldid=278994056). Instead of getting it right, Alan Cabal's article "Star Chamber Redux: the Prosecution of Zundel" was simply left out of the article and then on April 5th, 2009, user Verbal removed the last mention of Alan Cabal that remained in the CounterPunch article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=281912735&oldid=280865106). David Gerard truly believes there is a NPOV on this website, and has even defended his ownership over his future Barlett quotation: "Mostly I'm the person I know
>   of calling it Wikipedia's greatest
> innovation ;-p much more so than merely letting anyone edit the
> website. Are there others?" (June 2008, David Gerard, http://infoholics-anonymous.blogspot.com/2008/06/changing-world-via-wikipedia.html)
>
> Such a thorough job has been done this past week of wiping Wikipedia clean of any mention of Alan Cabal that even the Wikipedia article for New York Press no longer lists him as a former contributor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=281915790&oldid=275246572). David Gerard so firmly believes that Wikipedia has a NPOV that he can be found repeating again and again, "Wikipedia’s fundamental content policy of Neutral Point of View is, in
> my opinion, its greatest innovation - far greater than merely letting
> anyone edit the website." ( September 2007, David Gerard) (http://ivo.co.za/2007/09/20/wikipedia-as-efficient-market/) On his blog: "I consider the Neutral Point Of View policy our most important innovation, far more so than letting anyone edit the site." (http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/12/17/rorschach-knols/) (December 2007, David Gerard).
>
> Probably the reason Alan Cabal has been viciously persecuted by Wikipedians for over a year now is because he has defended the freedom of speech of holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. But then again Alan Cabal has written so many controversial articles over the years that I guess Wikipedians could have many reasons for suppressing his biography and work. For the last time, I leave you with another permutation of what is surely David Gerard's greatest quote: "NPOV is Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than letting any idiot edit the website." (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/92817)
>
> Sincerely,
> Bill Carter
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>    
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
FT2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

FT2
In reply to this post by Bill Carter
This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by
others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't
"A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It
then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor
even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric
device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a
mistake to be retracted when spotted.



Bill, you stated that "One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is
the one about how there is generally a NPOV".But nobody's said that in any
of your cites. What people have said is, it is a goal of all articles, and a
non-negotiable expectation that articles and their authors should aim
towards for an article. Nobody's said it has actually been reached for
many/most articles. All your "David Gerard" quotes - none show him saying
that it exists for most articles, rather they show him saying that it is an
important innovation of the project to explicitly identify NPOV as an ideal
goal and top priority, at a project content level.



Whether anyone personally believes NPOV is a "good idea" or not (or a
foolish idealists dream) there is in fact no conflict between a statement
that some person sees it as a very significant stance/innovation or that the
project's community has identified it as a major priority, and despite this,
achieving it is often elusive and many/most articles haven't yet done so.



You then claim that "Many of you... know exactly how patently false the NPOV
/doctrine/ is" without actually substantiating that statement at all. The
NPOV /doctrine/ is that:

   - All significant views on a topic that can be sourced to reliable
   sources, should, in an ideal article, be represented in a balanced manner.
   - That while articles may take a long time to get there,the long term
   goal over time is to gradually see articles reducing a biased viewpoint in
   favor of a neutral one.

That is the "NPOV doctrine", put simply. It doesn't seem "false" or
falsifiable, because it doesn't say how Wikipedia is edited, but how it
/should be/ edited. So the bare statement that "many know" that these two
statements are "patently false" seems in the cold light of day, ridiculously
unsupported by your post, which doesn't attempt to disprove these two points
at all, but attempts to show simply, they haven't been achieved yet (which
nobody's disputing anyway).

Brilliant, Sherlock.

By contrast, David Gerard's actual point (which one may agree with or not)
in all the quotes you cite, seems to simply be that, in his view, an
explicit statement and goal to this effect is an important innovation for an
encyclopedia to explicitly and publicly have stated as its core editorial
policy.



Sloppy logic, rhetorical post.



FT2

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Bill Carter <[hidden email]>wrote:

> One of the biggest lies being spouted at Wikipedia is the one about how
> there is generally a NPOV. Wikipedia administrator David Gerard recently
> wrote on this mailing list, "NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical
> than letting anyone edit the website." In fact, Wikipedia is a battleground
> in which the opinions of the most competitive group win out, rather than
> some theoretical neutral POV. Many of you are far more knowledgeable about
> the POV pushers at Wikipedia and know exactly how patently false the NPOV
> doctrine is.
>
> A Wikipedia article was recently written about Alan Cabal that, in my
> opinion, met Wikipedia's notability standards beyond a doubt (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article).
> It was speedy deleted on March 30th, 2009 within hours of being re-created.
> A deletion review followed which was conducted like a 4th AfD and the
> outcome was that the speedy delete was upheld (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30).
> Throughout there was talk of keeping one's personal views to oneself.
> Completely ridiculous considering user Bali ultimate, who nominated the Alan
> Cabal article for speedy deletion, later admitted that he had been watching
> its rewrite very closely for weeks and that's why he had pounced!
> Immediately afterward I looked into David Gerard's aphorism and, looking far
> back, found that he had said the same thing years ago on another Wikipedia
> mailing list: "I think NPOV is our greatest
>  innovation, much more radical than letting anyone edit the website." (
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2007-August/029947.html)
>
> Now there is an ongoing discussion in the CounterPunch article about how
> mere mentions of Alan Cabal are being expunged from the entire website (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CounterPunch#Expunging_Alan_Cable_.28Alan_Cabal.29).
> The CounterPunch article already has a sordid history. For example, on
> January 28th, 2009, user Jarjam copyedited the CounterPunch article to say,
> "CounterPunch has also been
> criticized for publishing articles by
> authors such as Alan Cabal and Daniel A. McGowan who have
> defended the pro-Hitler persepective of Holocaust deniers such as Ernest
> Zundel. Zundel is the author of 'The Hitle We Loved and Why'."(
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=267015135&oldid=263748961).
> Nearly two months later this "unsourced libellous claim of contributors
> being pro-Hitler" was removed by user Rd232, on March 22nd 2009 to be exact
> (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=278994805&oldid=278994056).
> Instead of getting it right, Alan Cabal's article "Star Chamber Redux: the
> Prosecution of Zundel" was simply left out of the article and then on April
> 5th, 2009, user Verbal removed the last mention of Alan Cabal that remained
> in the CounterPunch article (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CounterPunch&diff=281912735&oldid=280865106).
> David Gerard truly believes there is a NPOV on this website, and has even
> defended his ownership over his future Barlett quotation: "Mostly I'm the
> person I know
>  of calling it Wikipedia's greatest
> innovation ;-p much more so than merely letting anyone edit the
> website. Are there others?" (June 2008, David Gerard,
> http://infoholics-anonymous.blogspot.com/2008/06/changing-world-via-wikipedia.html
> )
>
> Such a thorough job has been done this past week of wiping Wikipedia clean
> of any mention of Alan Cabal that even the Wikipedia article for New York
> Press no longer lists him as a former contributor (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=281915790&oldid=275246572).
> David Gerard so firmly believes that Wikipedia has a NPOV that he can be
> found repeating again and again, "Wikipedia’s fundamental content policy of
> Neutral Point of View is, in
> my opinion, its greatest innovation - far greater than merely letting
> anyone edit the website." ( September 2007, David Gerard) (
> http://ivo.co.za/2007/09/20/wikipedia-as-efficient-market/) On his blog:
> "I consider the Neutral Point Of View policy our most important innovation,
> far more so than letting anyone edit the site." (
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/12/17/rorschach-knols/) (December
> 2007, David Gerard).
>
> Probably the reason Alan Cabal has been viciously persecuted by Wikipedians
> for over a year now is because he has defended the freedom of speech of
> holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. But then again Alan Cabal has written so many
> controversial articles over the years that I guess Wikipedians could have
> many reasons for suppressing his biography and work. For the last time, I
> leave you with another permutation of what is surely David Gerard's greatest
> quote: "NPOV is Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than letting
> any idiot edit the website." (
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/92817
> )
>
> Sincerely,
> Bill Carter
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

David Gerard-2
2009/4/9 FT2 <[hidden email]>:

> This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by
> others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't
> "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It
> then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor
> even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric
> device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a
> mistake to be retracted when spotted.


This is a much better reply than I could have bothered writing.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Bill Carter
In reply to this post by FT2
FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other
Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people
come forward will we get a good idea.



________________________________
From: FT2 <[hidden email]>
To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie

This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by
others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't
"A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It
then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor
even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric
device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a
mistake to be retracted when spotted.

<snip>



     
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Sam Korn
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Bill Carter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other
> Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people
> come forward will we get a good idea.

No-one claims we have achieved NPOV.  Indeed, most everyone would
think that, ultimately, it is unattainable.  It is a goal and a
guiding principle.

--
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Tristan Thomas-4
In reply to this post by Bill Carter
Bill-I'm sure there are some examples as you have shown of articles gone
wrong, but I'm sure that these are in the minority.  As far as I've
found it, Wikipedia has been a generally neutral & reliable source, with
the odd exceptions.

Tris

On 09/04/2009 14:24, Bill Carter wrote:

> FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other
> Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people
> come forward will we get a good idea.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: FT2<[hidden email]>
> To: English Wikipedia<[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
>
> This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by
> others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't
> "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It
> then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor
> even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric
> device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a
> mistake to be retracted when spotted.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>    

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Bill Carter
Tris: You're not insane, are you?

Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article.




________________________________
From: Tris Thomas <[hidden email]>
To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:28:31 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie

Bill-I'm sure there are some examples as you have shown of articles gone
wrong, but I'm sure that these are in the minority.  As far as I've
found it, Wikipedia has been a generally neutral & reliable source, with
the odd exceptions.

Tris

On 09/04/2009 14:24, Bill Carter wrote:

> FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other
> Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people
> come forward will we get a good idea.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: FT2<[hidden email]>
> To: English Wikipedia<[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
>
> This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by
> others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't
> "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It
> then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor
> even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric
> device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a
> mistake to be retracted when spotted.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>    

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



     
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Tristan Thomas-4
Um, don't think so!

Again, this is an isolated example.  There may be many articles like
this, but overall they will be a tiny percentage of the total articles
in Wikipedia.  NPOV has by no means been achieved throughout Wikipedia,
as said before it's a goal & many articles are neutral & reliable.

On 09/04/2009 14:33, Bill Carter wrote:

> Tris: You're not insane, are you?
>
> Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Tris Thomas<[hidden email]>
> To: English Wikipedia<[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:28:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
>
> Bill-I'm sure there are some examples as you have shown of articles gone
> wrong, but I'm sure that these are in the minority.  As far as I've
> found it, Wikipedia has been a generally neutral&  reliable source, with
> the odd exceptions.
>
> Tris
>
> On 09/04/2009 14:24, Bill Carter wrote:
>    
>> FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other
>> Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people
>> come forward will we get a good idea.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: FT2<[hidden email]>
>> To: English Wikipedia<[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
>>
>> This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by
>> others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't
>> "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It
>> then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor
>> even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric
>> device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a
>> mistake to be retracted when spotted.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>      
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>    
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Carcharoth
In reply to this post by Bill Carter
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Bill Carter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article.

It has been delinked, not removed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=282741269&oldid=282729469

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Bill Carter
Now how about restoring the NPOV article about the man?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article




________________________________
From: Carcharoth <[hidden email]>
To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:43:36 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Bill Carter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article.

It has been delinked, not removed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=282741269&oldid=282729469

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



     
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Tristan Thomas-4
Bill, as far as I can tell, with very limited knowledge on the subject,
he seems notable enough.  I am happy to support the article being put on
& will support that if it does.  I've added a little comment to the talk
page on it to consider.

Cheers

On 09/04/2009 14:45, Bill Carter wrote:

> Now how about restoring the NPOV article about the man?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Carcharoth<[hidden email]>
> To: English Wikipedia<[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:43:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Bill Carter<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>    
>> Alan Cabal's name was just struck once again from the New York Press article.
>>      
>
> It has been delinked, not removed:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Press&diff=282741269&oldid=282729469
>
> Carcharoth
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>    
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Mark Nilrad
In reply to this post by Bill Carter
Bill,
It's not any good to make blanket statements about Wikipedia based on one article in your experience. This is what a lot of journalists do when writing about Wikipedia, and then proceed to lambast/praise/poo-poo or whatever based on that single experience. That is what it looks to me like you are doing.

I'm sure there are a good number of article that have "been maligned over and over again". But then, I am certain there are literally millions of articles that are great, and that have no problem with them (in that regard, anyway). As people have said, articles like the Cabal one are in a minority.

Noble Story




________________________________
From: Bill Carter <[hidden email]>
To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:24:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie

FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other
Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people
come forward will we get a good idea.



________________________________
From: FT2 <[hidden email]>
To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie

This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by
others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't
"A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It
then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor
even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric
device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a
mistake to be retracted when spotted.

<snip>



     
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



     
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Bill Carter
These single article experiences sure seem to crop up often, huh? Anyhow, I'm talking about many articles involving one subject: journalist Alan Cabal.




________________________________
From: Mark Nilrad <[hidden email]>
To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 10:10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie

Bill,
It's not any good to make blanket statements about Wikipedia based on one article in your experience. This is what a lot of journalists do when writing about Wikipedia, and then proceed to lambast/praise/poo-poo or whatever based on that single experience. That is what it looks to me like you are doing.

I'm sure there are a good number of article that have "been maligned over and over again". But then, I am certain there are literally millions of articles that are great, and that have no problem with them (in that regard, anyway). As people have said, articles like the Cabal one are in a minority.

Noble Story




________________________________
From: Bill Carter <[hidden email]>
To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:24:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie

FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other
Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people
come forward will we get a good idea.



________________________________
From: FT2 <[hidden email]>
To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie

This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by
others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't
"A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It
then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor
even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric
device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a
mistake to be retracted when spotted.

<snip>



     
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



     
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



     
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Bill Carter
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Hi David Gerard: I suggest you take a personal interest in the Alan Cabal article and see that NPOV is upheld:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox_The_unloved_article

Bill




________________________________
From: David Gerard <[hidden email]>
To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 8:03:40 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie

2009/4/9 FT2 <[hidden email]>:

> This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by
> others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't
> "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It
> then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor
> even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric
> device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a
> mistake to be retracted when spotted.


This is a much better reply than I could have bothered writing.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



     
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
FT2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

FT2
In reply to this post by Bill Carter
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Bill Carter <[hidden email]>wrote:

> (Snip) I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist
> Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again.



Actually much of your post was mis-targeted rhetoric on NPOV. I counted  6
times you quoted David Gerard saying the same point (which is dissected
above).You did discuss Alan Cabal... yet each time it seemed the format was
this:

"Alan Cabal is horribly treated <cite>, and so here's /another/ quote of
David Gerard saying he sees NPOV as a major innovation of Wikipedia".

One could be forgiven for believing your post wasn't really about Alan at
all.



FT2



> Who knows how many other
> Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people
> come forward will we get a good idea.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: FT2 <[hidden email]>
> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
>
> This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes
> by
> others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't
> "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It
> then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor
> even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric
> device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a
> mistake to be retracted when spotted.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Oskar Sigvardsson
In reply to this post by Bill Carter
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Bill Carter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> These single article experiences sure seem to crop up often, huh? Anyhow, I'm talking about many articles involving one subject: journalist Alan Cabal.


It still proves absolutely nothing. Lets say this issue had "cropped
up", as you say, one thousand times. In terms of the things we talk
about on this mailing-list, that would be staggering, we wouldn't be
talking about anything else!

But wikipedia has around 2.8 million articles. A thousand articles are
a lot, but it's only 0.03% of the total. Looking at it from that
perspective, 99.97% can achieve some sort of NPOV, which is an
absolutely incredible result.

My point isn't that 99.97% of wikipedia articles don't have NPOV
problems (I have no idea what the number is, but I reckon it's high),
my point is that ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Saying
"article X has NPOV problems, therefore NPOV is a stupid and
unattainable policy" is an absurd argument, and if you argue that way
no one is going to take you seriously.

--Oskar

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

Ian Woollard
I agree with the below.

And I'd also like to point out that NPOV is self-evidently *NOT* a big lie;
nor even a noble lie, maybe it's a white lie or an exaggeration at the very
worst. ;-)

2009/4/10 Oskar Sigvardsson <[hidden email]>

> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Bill Carter <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > These single article experiences sure seem to crop up often, huh? Anyhow,
> I'm talking about many articles involving one subject: journalist Alan
> Cabal.
>
>
> It still proves absolutely nothing. Lets say this issue had "cropped
> up", as you say, one thousand times. In terms of the things we talk
> about on this mailing-list, that would be staggering, we wouldn't be
> talking about anything else!
>
> But wikipedia has around 2.8 million articles. A thousand articles are
> a lot, but it's only 0.03% of the total. Looking at it from that
> perspective, 99.97% can achieve some sort of NPOV, which is an
> absolutely incredible result.
>
> My point isn't that 99.97% of wikipedia articles don't have NPOV
> problems (I have no idea what the number is, but I reckon it's high),
> my point is that ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Saying
> "article X has NPOV problems, therefore NPOV is a stupid and
> unattainable policy" is an absurd argument, and if you argue that way
> no one is going to take you seriously.
>
> --Oskar
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect
world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect world would be
pretty ghastly though.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NPOV is a big lie

KillerChihuahua
In reply to this post by Bill Carter
Ye gods. "Propaganda ministry"? I was giving you due respect and reading
you carefully until you spouted this nonsense.

Bill Carter wrote:

> FT2: You must be a part of Wikipedia's propaganda ministry. I offer you facts about one striking instance in which journalist Alan Cabal has been maligned over and over again. Who knows how many other
> Wikipedia articles are being treated in such a way, and only if people
> come forward will we get a good idea.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: FT2 <[hidden email]>
> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 7:16:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV is a big lie
>
> This is (when stripped down) basically a "straw man" post. It uses quotes by
> others saying "A"as a rhetoric device in a question where the issue isn't
> "A" at all, and in effect, conflates the two to try and make its point. It
> then presents its point as made when in fact it hasn't made it at all, nor
> even contains any attempt to do so. It's either sloppy logic or a rhetoric
> device. Either way it has no place in honest communication, except as a
> mistake to be retracted when spotted.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>      
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>  

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
12