[Campaigns-l] Enemies of Democracy

[Chad Lupkes]

However, if we wait for 'experts' to create our content, we will be
waiting forever.  Wikipedia may not be perfect, but the more it grows,
the more it attracts those experts who can correct and maintain the
accuracy of the content.  I think we are walking the same path.  I
consider us all 'experts' in our local campaigns and about the issues
we care about.  If we're wrong, let others come and correct us.

Please define 'philosophically neutral' in the context of a political
discussion, especially given the global nature of our website.  The
United States alone is as polarized along partisan lines as much as we
have ever been since the Civil War.  I'm not neutral in what I post,
nor can I expect anyone else to be.  But what I try to be, and expect
others to be in turn, is fair to other viewpoints.

Political discussions are biased by their very nature.  Each
individual has a bias in some direction or another.  We're not trying
to discourage that bias, we're trying to allow us all to learn from
one another and come to terms with our collective diversity.

Chad

On 11/12/06, neoclassical at mail.com <neoclassical at mail.com> wrote:
>
> > How do you think we could structure Ingmar's freedom ideas?
>
> I think you should start from a philosophically neutral position.
>
> I think you should view Wikipedian editors as guardians of text, not creators of it.
>
> I think you should get experts to create that text.
>
> Furthermore, I think you should use philosophical and not "political" classifications to avoid redundancy.
>
> Anything else will have inherent bias (as much of Wikipedia does today).
>
> --
>
> Search for products and services at:
> http://search.mail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>