3,209
edits
Changes
→Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
::::::: Your're saying that's expected, because the editors are just not '''qualified''' or maybe they just playing ''boys club'' games (or both).[[User:Peter Z.|Peter Z.]] 06:59, 24 October 2009 (PDT)
::::::: Your're saying that's expected, because the editors are just not '''qualified''' or maybe they just playing ''boys club'' games (or both).[[User:Peter Z.|Peter Z.]] 06:59, 24 October 2009 (PDT)
G-Day! ''It's taken on a darker tone''. What I am referring to is the '''ethical''' and '''moral''' issues involved in creating a feel good article about a man who allowed '''mass arrests/torture''' & '''mass murders''' (100 000 plus). Granted during the cold war he was portrayed as a hero (that was such a long time ago), however this is not the whole truth. Then we have editors surporting the article & finaly an admin who just don't get involved '''???''' What is going on at Wiki? Not very encyclopedic that's for sure. What if there was a feel good article on Stalin or Hitler? So do you think our article is nearly finish? On a lighter note, these days I am going for the preservative free wine. Cheers [[User:Peter Z.|Peter Z.]] 01:55, 25 October 2009 (PDT)
G-Day! ''It's taken on a darker tone''. What I am referring to is the '''ethical''' and '''moral''' issues involved in creating a feel good article about a man who allowed '''mass arrests/torture''' & '''mass murders''' (100 000 plus). Granted during the cold war he was portrayed as a hero (that was such a long time ago), however this is not the whole truth. Then we have editors surporting the article & finaly an admin who just don't get involved '''???''' What is going on at Wiki? Not very encyclopedic that's for sure. What if there was a feel good article on Stalin or Hitler? So do you think our article is nearly finish? On a lighter note, these days I am going for the preservative free wine. Cheers [[User:Peter Z.|Peter Z.]] 01:55, 25 October 2009 (PDT)
: Gday! I had too much ordinary wine last night. I think the article has some way to go, in terms of more fact checking, more context and a bit more of a thread, particularly an active comparison to Wikipedia. E.g "Here are the facts as recognised by mainstream historians, here is how Wikipedia presents it, and here is why". Actually Wikipedia does a reasonably good job where there are enough experts to represent the mainstream view. In this case, there is one guy or two who completely control that set of articles. The administration never do anything because their job is to control behaviour. Also most administrators have hardly any education, I don't know if you realise that. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 02:28, 25 October 2009 (PDT)