3 ms·
Well for a start, I didn't downvote you - just replied. I think if you take your aspect of the argument to it's logical conclusion no one that has any reason t
by dotBen 15y ago
Well for a start, I didn't downvote you - just replied.
I think if you take your aspect of the argument to it's logical conclusion no one that has any reason to be editing a wikipedia page on a given subject can be wholly objective on that same subject.
Anything I know enough to comment on, I probably have a biased view on.
For example I have no biased view on the Greek/Turkish ownership dispute of Cyprus, but that's because I know nothing about it.
Which all just demonstrates yet another flaw in Wikipedia; why he put that resource on such a pedestal all the time, I don't know.
- andrewfelix 15y agoThe author doesn't just know about the subject matter, he's friends with the subject.
- eropple 15y agoAnd I lived in Maine for 22 years and really like the place. Can I not objectively write about it?
- andrewfelix 15y agoWithout a doubt you could give some great insights and a lot of useful information. But to answer your question; No, you alone could not write an objective encyclopedia article on the subject.
- dotBen 15y agoOk, so if a bunch of folks write about a given scientist - 2 being friends of the subject, the rest not - then by this logic the resultant copy they create as a collective should be objective. Great, problem solved.
- eropple 15y agoSo, anyone who has any real connection to a topic shouldn't be writing about what they know on Wikipedia. Awesome. Man, I wish Citizendium hadn't fell apart. It didn't venerate nonsense.
- andrewfelix 15y agoWhere did I suggest they shouldn't be writing about it? All I said was alone a single source with a biased outlook can't offer an objective view. "Citizendium hadn't fell apart"? Hyperbole in the extreme.