Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-09/In the news

Discuss this story

CPOV

The CPOV quote strikes me as a gratuitous slam. Even more so because those attacked can't reply on Wikipedia. Yes, I do have a POV of my own here, but that makes me sensitive to the point, not invalidates it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is "gratuitous" at all to note something about the relationship between the critical approach to Wikipedia that this book represents, and proponents of another critical approach to Wikipedia which many Wikipedians might be more familar with. Here in the "In the news" section we mostly just summarize what has been written elsewhere, and the "can't reply" argument would prohibit doing so for any reports about blocked or banned users. In other words it seems that you should complain to the quoted editors first. Still, I'll note here that Kohs has described his own perspective of the banning of himself, yourself and Awbrey from the CPOV mailing list in posting at Examiner.com: www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikipedia-criticism-group-purges-three-critics

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the issues about reply would argue for great sensitivity when reporting on matters about blocked or banned users. And ironically, you could not make the link live due to a blacklist - here: "Wikipedia criticism group purges three critics". Key passage

"The CPOV organisers have decided to remove you from the list. We feel that your contributions are working against the kind of dialogue we would like to see flourish on our list. Our intent is not to nit pick about Wikipedia, show our disdain for it, or to reveal its members to be evil or cult-like, etc. etc. Moreover, we do not wish to alienate people who participate in Wikipedia in our discussion."

Given such an earlier disdainful message from one of the book editors, I believe it was quite unfair for them to write what at least looks like a cheap shot in the book introduction, for declining to then do free work for them. And putting it in Wikipedia's newsletter compounds the attack. Don't deny the choices you make, when it is clear they are choices. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course free to take your complaint up with the CPOV people. I'm sure it will be answered at length.©Geni 19:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expressed my thoughts in that direction. And at some reputational risk to myself, as I wasn't subjected to the introduction name-calling. Nonetheless, that does not absolve or negate the choices made here. Now, it is of course hardly the worst which has ever been done. However, I think it's important to raise objections, to try to keep down the "fair game" effect. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a matter of not following a fairness policy. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad bit of rhetoric. That it advocates censorship based on an unproven premise does rather devalue it somewhat though.©Geni 05:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial choice. And moral premises are rarely subject to proof (see Just world phenomenon). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]