10 ms·
>politically neutral What does politically neutral mean?
by thecopy 3y ago
>politically neutral
What does politically neutral mean?
- vkou 3y agoI call anyone who agrees with my politics, or keeps quiet about theirs politically neutral.
- Firmwarrior 3y agoA wise man once said, "You're either with us, or you're with the enemy" I think that sums up US politics pretty well since 2016
- pessimizer 3y agoI call people who don't care about the outcome of a particular issue that is a source conflict disinterested, and that's close enough to politically neutral to kiss it. Instead, on Wikipedia the people most involved and passionate about an issue will be the biggest contributors to entries related to it, and the side with the most paid contributors and/or internet-addicted contributors will run those pages like a fiefdom.
- Towaway69 3y agoTaking a more holistic view perhaps.
- WeylandYutani 3y agoThe answer to that differs on your political perspective.
- miah_ 3y agoSiding with whoever in power meets your financial goals.
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago[flagged]
- ThrowawayTestr 3y agoBoth sides think you're biased. That's how the BBC does it.
- lesuorac 3y agoHow do you do this in a country with more than 2 political parties such as the United States [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_t...
- George83728 3y agos/Both/All/
- concordDance 3y agoMove to Canada, Germany, Australia or wherever.
- lesuorac 3y ago> Move to Canada, Germany, Australia or wherever. Your solution on how to cover a topic in a neutral fashion when there are more than 2 political parties is to move to a country where there are more than 2 political parties? That doesn't seem like a productive comment.
- concordDance 3y agoA Wikimedia based in a country with much less polarised politics will have a much easier time with neutrality. I guess I didn't include enough elaboration in my comment...
- ThrowawayTestr 3y agoThere are only two parties in Canada. Three if you count the Bloc.
- version_five 3y agoIt's not possible if you want to do any analysis. Maybe if you just report statistics and limit your reporting to a set of uncontroversial fields. Best you could hope for in a think tank would be setting orthogonal to the main thrust of either side, like libertarian or something - some version of free software advocacy could also work.
- objektif 3y ago[flagged]
- mock-possum 3y agotelling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in essence - dealing in facts, not editorializing.
- rsynnott 3y agoFor a think tank, presumably completely disconnected from the world, meditating on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (Though possibly that sort of awkward theology, too, is political; it's not something anyone ever did, rather a bit of anti-Catholicism from the reformation). More seriously, when someone says "politically neutral", they typically mean "agrees with me". It's otherwise meaningless for basically anything which engages with the real world.
- xpe 3y ago> More seriously, when someone says "politically neutral", they typically mean "agrees with me". This is an empirical statement. What experience underlies it? My experience (working across many sectors, including tech, government, and not for profits), is quite different. I think it is better to say this… There are various possible meanings for ‘politically neutral’: A person or organization that (a) is not tied to political organizations (for some definition of political); (b) doesn’t take a position on political matters; (c) does work that is both unaffected by politics and does not attempt to influence politics (IMO, impossible practically, but could be interpreted as a matter of degree)
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago"Is not", "doesn't", and "does" are not adequate for demonstrating an organization's apoliticalness, it simply demonstrates that they content with the status quo. The status quo is a political position, and depending on what about it you don't want to see change, can be a rather contentious one.
- xpe 3y agoInteresting points to consider — thanks. To clarify: endorsing the status quo is a political position. Not saying something is not identical to that. It of course can have probabilistic implications. In other words, silence doesn’t necessarily mean an entity (a person or org) is content with the status quo. It can be a strategic decision.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoIt means the green-username parent commenter is trying to derail the thread.
- Bran_son 3y agoNot serving on the US Department of State's Foreign Affairs Policy Board would be a good start. To be fair, Katherine Maher took that role after her time as Wikimedia CEO. But landing such a role implies one is well connected, and she interned at the CFR [1] before her time at Wikimedia. In other words, she seems far too well connected to the US government to be called "neutral". In the words of the New York Times, "Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality" - https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html#participationInPublicLife https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journali... [1] The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an American think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international relations. [..] Its membership has included senior politicians, numerous secretaries of state, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, professors, corporate directors and CEOs, and senior media figures. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations