Moral bankruptcy?, The Butler in the library with the canlestick Options

[communicat]

Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie". It's reminiscent of the Catholic leading figure (I forget his name) who once observed: "When I gave people food, they called me a saint; when I asked why people were poor, they called me a communist." I suggest the latter is because people like to cover up their own moral bankruptcy, but I'm open to correction. Like I said, there are always two or more sides to a story. Maybe.

[Rhindle]

I think a good example could be in how do you handle the flat earthers? It's probably as fringe a view as you can get but is there a fair way to put in their perspective without any snark from those with mainstream views? On the other side, those who are flat earthers should recognize that their view is not very widely accepted so should understand their view is not going to be given equal consideration with the accepted science. However, many with a fringe view are vehement in their views to the point of narcissism and try too hard to convince everyone they're right rather than work with others to incorporate the view they hold.

[The Joy]

I think a good example could be in how do you handle the flat earthers? It's probably as fringe a view as you can get but is there a fair way to put in their perspective without any snark from those with mainstream views? On the other side, those who are flat earthers should recognize that their view is not very widely accepted so should understand their view is not going to be given equal consideration with the accepted science. However, many with a fringe view are vehement in their views to the point of narcissism and try too hard to convince everyone they're right rather than work with others to incorporate the view they hold.

You would write what the Flat Earthers believe and then explain what scientists have been saying since the Ancient Greeks that the world is round and there is evidence to prove it. It's a busted myth and you use secondary scientific publications to prove it. If the Flat Earth People do not like that, tell them this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a website for willy-nilly, pseudo-science hoo-ha. And if they keep whining, tell them to shove off. I don't know why MONGO and his friends guarding the 9/11 article don't do that. Tell what the conspiracies are and then throw the science and literature at them. In an ideal world, the two sides would have a nice educational dialogue with the pseudo-people accepting that there are flaws in their theory and they go home and rethink their lives. Unfortunately, that does not happen often on Web 2.0.

[communicat]

I think a good example could be in how do you handle the flat earthers? It's probably as fringe a view as you can get but is there a fair way to put in their perspective without any snark from those with mainstream views? On the other side, those who are flat earthers should recognize that their view is not very widely accepted so should understand their view is not going to be given equal consideration with the accepted science. However, many with a fringe view are vehement in their views to the point of narcissism and try too hard to convince everyone they're right rather than work with others to incorporate the view they hold.

You would write what the Flat Earthers believe and then explain what scientists have been saying since the Ancient Greeks that the world is round and there is evidence to prove it. It's a busted myth and you use secondary scientific publications to prove it. If the Flat Earth People do not like that, tell them this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a website for willy-nilly, pseudo-science hoo-ha. And if they keep whining, tell them to shove off. I don't know why MONGO and his friends guarding the 9/11 article don't do that. Tell what the conspiracies are and then throw the science and literature at them. In an ideal world, the two sides would have a nice educational dialogue with the pseudo-people accepting that there are flaws in their theory and they go home and rethink their lives. Unfortunately, that does not happen often on Web 2.0.

Agreed. I doubt, however, if the Flat Earthers were ever called "commies". But even if they were labelled such, their personal political beliefs would be of no relevance or importance if their edits were done neutrally and in good faith -- (of no importance, that is, unless you happen to be a modern-day E J Hoover or Joe McCarthy).

For the sake of argument, let's go for the moment with a rather less hypothetical and extreme example than flat earthing. Let's say there exists an English WP article that happens to be the 10th most-visited article on WP, concerning one of the most calamitous events in human history (and no, I don't mean 9/11 either; that was nothing by comparison) . Let's say the article relies on about 400 references conveying the dominant Western historical narrative, to the near or total exclusion of reliable sources in English that convey dissenting Western views and/or non-Western views that carry weight ouside of the dominant, conservative Western mainstream. Let's say those perspectives are censored/suppressed/deleted as "fringe" etc, and the editor or editors attempting to achieve NPOV parity of sources is/are dismissed as wingnuts or a muckraking commies. Unfortunately that does happen often on Web 2.0 in topic areas of modern history (and indeed in this present topic discussion itself, as the record shows).

There's no WP or WR rule against reasoned dialogue and debate being replaced arbitrarily by excessive patriotic zeal. Maybe there should be, if only to avoid allegations of moral bankruptcy, such as this.

This post has been edited by communicat: