Content deleted Content added
→Clearer definition needed: I was trying to add a minority viewpoint |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 3:
|<center> <font size="+1">Welcome to the discussion</center></font>
|}
==Old discussion==
The article doesn't really ''define'' the term POV pushing, but just makes strong statements that it is not permitted. -- [[User:216.234.56.130|216.234.56.130]] 20:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Line 60:
Some people might think it ironic that I would want an essay about POV pushing out in the open like this, when I'm '''on probation''' for it. The answer is simply that it was all a misunderstanding and that I was trying to add a minority viewpoint to an article or two. That's all. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:Read [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Findings_of_fact]], that's exactly what earned you your arb com probation. Discussion and consensus was that this was to be redirected to [[Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APOV_pushing&diff=88220553&oldid=70446466] I urge to respect the community's decision. [[User:151.151.73.165|151.151.73.165]] 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::Ed, if you're really attached to this essay, why don't you just put it up in your userspace? --[[User:Minderbinder|Minderbinder]] 12:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If there is a consensus that this essay page be redirected to [[Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute]], please quote the text which indicates that consensus. I could not find it on the page you cited. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 10:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
151, since Ed is going to insist on reverting any removal of this page, you could always nominate it for deletion at MfD. --[[User:Minderbinder|Minderbinder]] 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
== Section on "how to spot" POV-Pushing, tactics used, etc...covering the "Straw Man" attack... ==
Just one example I have seen of one of the more subtle and pernicious tactics used to drive away "unwelcome" POV's is the [[Straw Man|Straw Man attack]], in which distorted views of the opponents POV are created by the attacker, attributed to the victim, and then presented for ridicule and evidence of alleged "POV Pushing" by the victim. Often, the subsequent attacks of ridicule directed at the Straw-Man "dummy argument" are taken up by other members of a "cabal" of editors.
I have experienced this form of attack in the context of POV pushing several times in my few short months on Wikipedia, and I have been looking for some WP guidelines in how to deal with this, as it is an extremely effective tactic for discrediting and driving away other editors, and once an editor has been successfully mis-characterized, it is very difficult to "undo" the damage. Perhaps this essay would be a good place to expound on the tactic.
Or, if anyone knows where this topic may have been discussed elsewhere, please point me to the article, essay, etc. Thanks in advance.
[[User:Wndl42|riverguy42 aka WNDL42]] ([[User talk:Wndl42|talk]]) 14:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:Ironically, just this same sort of [[discrediting attack]] has been used on me at Wikipedia. I'm frankly at a loss here. Is there any remedy, other than amassing support of other (disinterested) contributors to rally to one's defense? ---[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Well, the reason I brought this up is that I did see a couple of arguments you made attacked in exactly this way, and I'm glad you were able to recognize it from my description. Thus far, I have reacted to such attacks by calling them on it (with a link to [[Straw_Man]]), reacting strongly in protest, and making sure that they know I'm not gonna take the bait, and then redirecting them to what I DID say...but it's SO tedious and SO subtle to detect, especially for other editors who want to "weigh in" -- they get "sucked in" by the [[Straw Man]] too and wind up siding with the attacker. Maybe we can compare our experiences here and collaborate on an essay? [[User:Wndl42|riverguy42 aka WNDL42]] ([[User talk:Wndl42|talk]]) 00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, let's collaborate. Got any ideas for a good title? How about [[Wikipedia:POV pushing]]? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 00:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
== User space? ==
Why on earth is such a basic essay in ''user space''?
An essay on POV pushing belongs in ''user space?''
That seems like a joke. <span style="font-size:large;">[[Zen|☯]]</span> <span style="font-family:impact;"> [[User:Zenwhat|Zenwhat]]</span> ([[User talk:Zenwhat|talk]]) 18:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:When attempting to balance some articles which appeared biased to me, I added some viewpoints which ran counter to that apparent bias. I was tried and convicted of "tendentious editing".
:"It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents]
:I'm not sure who the joke is on, here. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 14:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
== Got the wrong person. ==
The following accusations refer to the wrong person, for which the accuser has incompletely apologized:
<blockquote>
Nonplused, I investigated. Wikipedia logs all changes. I found mine. And then I found Tabletop's. Someone called Tabletop was undoing my edits, and, following what I suppose is Wiki-etiquette, also explained why. "Note that Peiser has retracted this critique and admits that he was wrong!" Tabletop said.
I undid Tabletop's undoing of my edits, thinking I had an unassailable response: "Tabletop's changes claim to represent Peiser's views. I have checked with Peiser and he disputes Tabletop's version."
Tabletop undid my undid, claiming I could not speak for Peiser.
Why can Tabletop speak for Peiser but not I, who have his permission?, I thought. I redid Tabletop's undid and protested: "Tabletop is distorting Peiser. She does not speak for him. Peiser has approved my description of events concerning him."
Tabletop parried: "we have a reliable source to this. What Peiser has said to *you* is irrelevant."
Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I -- no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone's views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out. By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists. But unlike government propaganda, its source is not self-evident. We don't suspend belief when we read Wikipedia, as we do when we read literature from an organization with an agenda, because Wikipedia benefits from the Internet's cachet of making information free and democratic. This Big Brother enforces its views with a mouse.
</blockquote>
The real [[User:Tabletop]] mostly spends their time fixing spelling errors and making minor corrections to whatever they spot. The real [[User:Tabletop]] has no connection whatsoever with anyone called [[Kim Dabelstein Petersen]]. The real [[User:Tabletop]] has never heard of [[Peiser]].
[[User:Tabletop|Tabletop]] ([[User talk:Tabletop|talk]]) 09:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
| |||