Difference between revisions of "Wikispooks:Editorial Policy"
(update links and add section on courtesy) |
m (→No Illusion of 'Neutrality': typo) |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
WikiSpooks has no intention of maintaining a spurious neutrality as between so called ''"reliable sources/significant viewpoints... in proportion to their prominence, and solid evidence-based minority viewpoints - however small''". The entire quoted is loaded with value judgments - even when said sources are claimed to to be purely scientific, let alone if they are political. Such 'neutrality' seems designed to give grossly disproportionate weight to the "[[Project:Definitions|The Establishment view]]" or the "{{on}}". | WikiSpooks has no intention of maintaining a spurious neutrality as between so called ''"reliable sources/significant viewpoints... in proportion to their prominence, and solid evidence-based minority viewpoints - however small''". The entire quoted is loaded with value judgments - even when said sources are claimed to to be purely scientific, let alone if they are political. Such 'neutrality' seems designed to give grossly disproportionate weight to the "[[Project:Definitions|The Establishment view]]" or the "{{on}}". | ||
| − | As [[John Pilger]] has noted, value free journalism is a fiction, an excuse for a craven refusal to challenge the status-quo. Decisions about what to write and what not | + | As [[John Pilger]] has noted, value free journalism is a fiction, an excuse for a craven refusal to challenge the status-quo. Decisions about what to write and what not to write are inevitably partisan. For example, note the [[BBC]]'s refusal to broadcast the "Disasters Emergency Committee" Appeal for Gaza <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/23/bbc-refuses-gaza-appeal BBC refusal to broadcast the "Disasters Emergency Committee" Appeal for Gaza - The Guardian January 2009]</ref> in January 2009 on the grounds of 'maintaining impartiality'. WikiSpooks editors need make no apologies for editing according to their personal convictions. |
One result of this inclusive approach is that page deletions are relatively rare on Wikispooks. Deletions are reverted unless a valid reason for deletion is present. | One result of this inclusive approach is that page deletions are relatively rare on Wikispooks. Deletions are reverted unless a valid reason for deletion is present. | ||
Revision as of 13:09, 29 May 2014
WikiSpooks seeks to emulate Wikipedia's style, but not its substance...
Contents
Style - Similar to Wikipedia
- Full article: Wikispooks:Style Guide
- Full article: Wikispooks:Style Guide
WikiSpooks has a short style guide, which should help you write articles. The editorial approach is pretty similar to that of Wikipedia, though has a few differences such as a determined avoidance of credentialism. See the "Guidelines, Help & Resources" section of the Wikipedia Community Portal Page for more advice on literary style and visual presentation.
Substance - Different from Wikipedia
WikiSpooks' differs from Wikipedia on matters such as definitions of "bias", "Neutral Point of View" and "notability of sources". Some extracts from Wikipedia's definition of "Neutral Point of View" [1] will suffice to illustrate the differences.
Majority ≠ Accuracy
Much madness is divinest Sense
To a discerning Eye
Much Sense - the starkest Madness
'Tis the Majority
In this, as All, prevail
Assent - and you are sane
Demur - you're straightway dangerous
And handled with a Chain
Poem 435 - Emily Dickinson, c. 1862
Wikipedia:
"In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the super-majority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."
Wikipedia equates majority with accuracy. To focus on the specific example, it is quite likely that many non-Western Establishment scholars would reverse the relative Wiesenthal/Irving super-majority/minority proportions stated here. Add to that the propensity of certain western countries to imprison people like Irving for simply expressing a minority opinion, and the mainstream assumption that we have anything approaching freedom of expression, speech and research becomes risible. Which is not to defend Irving's opinions but merely to illustrate the ways in which 'The majority' imposes absurd orthodoxies which define the boundaries of allowable debate and are thus reflected in all commercially-controlled media - including Wikipedia.
Professional ≠ Reliable
Wikipedia:
"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth should not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority."
The same problem recurs, and note that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources" includes those who can be manipulated by money (such as newspaper columnists, television reporters and other professionals). Blogs may be judged reliable "if the writers are professionals". A "significant viewpoint" is of course no less of a value judgment - to illustrate, wind the clock back some 450 years and replace 'flat-earth' with 'Heliocentric'. So NPOV is about echoing a concensus reality, which gives prominence to viewpoints backed by big money.
No Illusion of 'Neutrality'
WikiSpooks has no intention of maintaining a spurious neutrality as between so called "reliable sources/significant viewpoints... in proportion to their prominence, and solid evidence-based minority viewpoints - however small". The entire quoted is loaded with value judgments - even when said sources are claimed to to be purely scientific, let alone if they are political. Such 'neutrality' seems designed to give grossly disproportionate weight to the "The Establishment view" or the "official narrative".
As John Pilger has noted, value free journalism is a fiction, an excuse for a craven refusal to challenge the status-quo. Decisions about what to write and what not to write are inevitably partisan. For example, note the BBC's refusal to broadcast the "Disasters Emergency Committee" Appeal for Gaza [2] in January 2009 on the grounds of 'maintaining impartiality'. WikiSpooks editors need make no apologies for editing according to their personal convictions.
One result of this inclusive approach is that page deletions are relatively rare on Wikispooks. Deletions are reverted unless a valid reason for deletion is present.
As a general guideline, the following are to be substituted everywhere where establishment value judgments are clearly in evidence in the Wikipedia guidelines:
No 'Taboo' Ideas
Wikipedia is a forum for exploring ideas of all types. Of course, if you wish others to be interested enough in your ideas to help develop them, you should be prepared to present some evidence to back them up, but Wikispooks aims not to have taboos which rules ideas out of court a priori. Template:Ep
General Courtesy
Collaboration with a community of editors around the world is sometimes challenging, so editors should maintain courtesy at all times and be mindful that not all Wikispooks editors have native level fluency in English and that misunderstandings can happen in any case. The talk pages are a good venue for discussion about article content. In particular, if you revert someone's edits, you are recommended either leave a note on that page's talk page or on the user's page. At a very minimum, you should use the comment box to explain the reversion.
References
| ||||||
|
