Difference between revisions of "Wikispooks:Editorial Policy"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Import about page deletion)
 
(46 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''The editorial policy of ''WikiSpooks'' is similar to that of Wikipedia''' and for the purposes of acceptable composition and page layout style, the "'''Guidelines, Help & Resources'''" section of the Wikipedia Community Portal Page<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal#Guidelines Wikipedia Community Portal Page]</ref> should be followed.
+
{{HelpSection|image=ws_write.png}}
 +
'''Wikispooks policy''' is intended to help someone from a [[Wikipedia]] background adjust the Wikispooks policy of what is suitable material. Definitions of "bias", "Neutral Point of View" and (particularly) "notability of sources" may be unfamiliar, since Wikispooks does not has no fielty to the [[authorities]] and their {{ccm}}. Some extracts from Wikipedia's definition of "''Neutral Point of View''" <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia 'Neutral Point of View']</ref> will suffice to illustrate the differences.
  
==How WikiSpooks differs==
+
==Importance of Evidence==
'''It is over the definitions of "bias", "Neutral Point of View" and "notability of sources"''' that ''WikiSpooks'' parts company with Wikipedia. The whole of the Wikipedia document ''''Neutral Point of View'''' <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia 'Neutral Point of View']</ref> is worth reading in this context but some brief extracts will suffice to illustrate the differences.
+
''Opinions are helpful, but become much more so when they explain evidence which is readily observed and generally agreed upon''. It is easy to cite sources, and help readers track information back to primary sources. Therefore, you are highly recommended to cite your sources by using a pair of [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Extension:Cite <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags] containing the reference (e.g. the URL of a webpage).This will display in the main text as a small supertext numeral, while adding the reference to the list at the bottom<ref>Like this!</ref>.
{{QB
+
 
|'''Quote:'''
+
If you lack evidence for your viewpoints, you may still include them, but should offer an explanation of why this might not be available. You can indicate doubt about a particular statement by using the [[template:cn]] template.<ref>cn = "citation needed"</ref>
In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to [[Simon Wiesenthal]], the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but [[David Irving]] disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the super-majority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.
 
}}
 
  
'''The problem with that formulation''' is that it equates majority with accuracy. To focus on the specific example, it is quite likely that many non-Western Establishment scholars would reverse the relative Wiesenthal/Irving super-majority/minority proportions stated here. Add to that the propensity of certain western countries to imprison people like Irving for simply expressing a minority opinion, and the mainstream assumption that we have anything approaching freedom of expression, speech and research becomes risible. Which is not to defend Irving's opinions but merely to illustrate the ways in which 'The majority' imposes absurd orthodoxies which define the boundaries of allowable debate and are thus reflected in all mainstream media - including Wikipedia.
+
===Uploading documents===
 +
If you have non-classified (or de-classified) [[document]]s of particular relevance to [[deep politics]] and/or if you think that the originals may be removed from elsewhere on the internet, you may upload them to this site.
  
 +
===Trustworthiness of sources===
 +
''Wikispooks has a simple policy about reliability of sources: - all sources are <u>potentially</u> useful, so automatic assumption of good or bad faith is unhelpful''. If you doubt the usefulness of material added by another Wikispooks editor, the recommended first course of action is to discuss this publicly in their talk page. A public discussion through talk pages, by recording all opinions expressed, may help facilitate reflection on reliability or lack of it.
  
----
+
===Direct quotations===
<poem>
+
Tracking the origin of statements is very important on Wikispooks. Direct quotes can be a particularly effective way of elucidate a page's subject - and are therefore particularly useful in articles about [[people]]. Quotes of a few words are best done inline in the normal fashion with quotation marks ("). For quotes of more than a couple of lines, the best presentation is probably one or other of the [[:Category:Box Templates|Box templates]]. Long quotes do not belong in the {{NS|main}} - where the quoted material is particularly important, editors should usually important the whole thing into the {{NS|Document}}, for which [[Project:Document Editing Rules|separate rules apply]]. Use [[Template:Uncertain origin‎]] to flag any violations of this policy.
  
 +
==Majority ⊬ Accuracy ==
 +
{{Box-L||<poem>
 
  Much madness is divinest Sense
 
  Much madness is divinest Sense
 
  To a discerning Eye
 
  To a discerning Eye
  Much Sense- the starkest Madness
+
  Much Sense - the starkest Madness
 
  'Tis the Majority
 
  'Tis the Majority
 
  In this, as All, prevail
 
  In this, as All, prevail
  Assent-and you are sane
+
  Assent - and you are sane
  Demur-you're straightway dangerous
+
  Demur - you're straightway dangerous
 
  And handled with a Chain
 
  And handled with a Chain
 
    ''-Emily Dickinson (poem 435), c. 1862''
 
 
 
</poem>
 
</poem>
----
+
''Poem 435'' - [[Emily Dickinson]], c. 1862|}}
 +
<br/>
 +
{{QB
 +
|'''[[Wikipedia]]:'''
 +
"''In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to [[Simon Wiesenthal]], the [[Holocaust]] was a program of extermination of the [[Jew]]ish people in [[Germany]], but [[David Irving]] disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the super-majority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.''"
 +
}}
 +
''Wikipedia equates majority with accuracy''. To focus on the specific example, it is quite possible that many non-Western [[Establishment]] academics would reverse the relative Wiesenthal/Irving super-majority/minority proportions stated here. Add to that the propensity of certain western countries to imprison people like Irving for simply expressing a minority opinion, and the mainstream assumption that we have anything approaching [[freedom of expression]], speech and research becomes risible. This is not to defend Irving's opinions, but merely to note how 'The majority' imposes absurd orthodoxies which limit the boundaries of allowable debate and are thus reflected in all {{ccm}} - including Wikipedia.
  
 +
==Professional ⊬ Reliable ==
 
{{QB
 
{{QB
|'''Quote:'''
+
|'''Wikipedia:'''
Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth should not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.
+
"''Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth should not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.''"
 
}}
 
}}
 +
The same problem recurs, and note that Wikipedia's definition of "[[Wikispooks:Problems_with_Wikipedia#Reliability|reliable sources]]" includes those who can be manipulated by money (such as newspaper columnists, television reporters and other professionals). Blogs may be judged reliable "if the writers are professionals". A "significant viewpoint" is of course no less of a value judgment - to illustrate, wind the clock back some 450 years and replace 'flat-earth' with 'Heliocentric'. So NPOV is about echoing a [[concensus reality]], which gives prominence to viewpoints backed by big money.
 +
 +
==No Illusion of 'Neutrality' ==
 +
Wikispooks intends to give primacy to solid evidence-based viewpoints, even if unpopular, rather than affording spurious credibility to so called ''"reliable sources/significant viewpoints''". 'Neutral', impartial judgments are a fiction - even when said sources are claimed to to be purely scientific, let alone if they are political. Such 'neutrality' in fact gives a grossly disproportionate weight to the [[Establishment]] view (what Wikispooks terms the "{{on}}").
 +
 +
As [[John Pilger]] has noted, value free journalism is a fiction, an excuse for a craven refusal to challenge the status-quo. Decisions about what to write and what not to write are inevitably partisan. For example, note the [[BBC]]'s refusal to broadcast the "Disasters Emergency Committee" Appeal for Gaza <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/23/bbc-refuses-gaza-appeal BBC refusal to broadcast the "Disasters Emergency Committee" Appeal for Gaza - The Guardian January 2009]</ref> in January 2009 on the grounds of 'maintaining impartiality'. Wikispooks editors need make no apologies for editing according to their personal convictions.
 +
 +
One result of this inclusive approach is that page deletions are rare on Wikispooks. Deletions are reverted unless a valid reason{{clarify}} for deletion is present.
  
'''Same problem - plus "reliable sources" and "significant viewpoints" themselves involve superlative value judgments.''' To illustrate, wind the clock back some 450 years and replace 'flat-earth' with 'Heliocentric'.  
+
==No 'Taboo' Ideas==
 +
Wikispooks is a forum for exploring ideas of all types. Wikispooks aims to avoid taboos which rule ideas out of court ''a priori'', though Wikispooks aims to explore reality, not fantasy. For your ideas to persist in the {{NS|main}}, you should be prepared to present at some evidence and/or logic to back them up; persistent failure to explain the relevance of your contributions to articles will result in them being reverted or moved to a sub-page of your userpage.
  
'''''WikiSpooks''''' has no intention of maintaining a spurious neutrality as between so called '''"reliable sources/significant viewpoints... in proportion to their prominence", and solid evidence-based minority viewpoints - however small'''. The entire quoted phrase is loaded with value judgments - even when said sources are claimed to to be purely scientific - let alone if they are government/political. The inevitable result of such neutrality is to give grossly disproportionate weight to the "[[Project:Definitions|The Establishment view]]" or "[[Project:Definitions|The Official Narrative]]".
+
===Non-violent communication===
 +
{{FA|Non-violent communication}}
 +
Editors should communicate [[non-violently]], in the sense that they try not to use nebulous [[enemy images]] or [[polarising perspectives]]. Reports about the activities of the [[Russian]] [[establishment]], for example, should be aware that the threat of "[[Russian Propaganda]]" has been hyped in recent years by [[Propornot]] and a UK counterpart, the [[Integrity Initiative]]. This is not to say that Russia does not engage in [[Russia/propaganda|propaganda]], but that it is certainly not the only government to do so, and note should be taken of lies by other [[group]]s such as [[NATO]].<ref>For example, a [[NATO]] spokesman denied all knowledge of [[Operation Gladio]], but the group later admitted that this had been incorrect.{{cn}}</ref>
  
'''There is a lot more in the quote.''' It strives valiantly for the impossible. The result is a sort of bland establishment approved "neutrality" that further entrenches the status-quo. It is akin, for example, to the absurdity of the BBC refusal to broadcast the "Disasters Emergency Committee" Appeal for Gaza <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/23/bbc-refuses-gaza-appeal BBC refusal to broadcast the "Disasters Emergency Committee" Appeal for Gaza - The Guardian January 2009]</ref> in January 2009 on the grounds of 'maintaining impartiality'). It may be appropriate for a mainstream encyclopedia striving to avoid having an opinion on anything, but NOT so for ''WikiSpooks''.
+
==General Courtesy==
 +
Collaboration with a community of editors around the world is sometimes challenging, so editors should maintain courtesy at all times, especially with new editors who may be unfamiliar with procedure. Please be mindful that not all Wikispooks editors have native level fluency in English and that misunderstandings can happen in any case.  
  
'''As a general guideline, the following are to be substituted everywhere where establishment value judgments are clearly in evidence in the Wikipedia guidelines:'''
+
The talk pages are good venues for discussion about article content. In particular, if you revert someone's edits, you are recommended either leave an explanation on that page's talk page or on the user's page. ''At a very minimum, use the comment box to explain the reversion.''
 +
<!-- ''As a general guideline, the following are to be substituted everywhere where establishment value judgments are clearly in evidence in the [[Wikipedia]] guidelines:'' -->
 +
==Editor undertakings==
 +
{{FA|Wikispooks:Editor Undertakings}}
 +
Editors are expected to comply with a number of undertaking detailed in the [[Wikispooks:Editor Undertakings|Editor undertakings]] page. Anyone intending to apply for editor privileges should read this page before doing so.
  
* Page deletions will be reverted if a valid reason for deletion is not provided.
+
<div style="border:1px solid #9a9a9a; background-color:#f6f6f6; padding:0.5em 0.5em; padding-top: 0px; margin:auto; font-size:116%; width:100%; text-align:left;">
  
{{Ep}}
+
=='''Summary'''==
 +
# Official announcements, documents, press releases etc. important to the maintenance of hierarchy should be treated with skepticism proportional to the legal power, wealth or other such interest in the [[establishment]] hierarchies of their source.
 +
# Such information should be assumed to be issued in furtherance of a hidden - if sometimes more or less obvious - agenda and thus designed to mislead rather than to inform.
 +
# Reputation, Position, Rank, Place etc., in Establishment hierarchies and protocols are pretentious conceits serving establishment agendas (hidden or otherwise) and thus more deserving of ridicule than respect.
 +
</div>
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
 
+
{{Template:Wikispooks Footer/Policy}}
{{Main-footer}}
+
[[Category:Wikispooks Policy]]
 
 
[[Category:Policies and Rules]]
 

Latest revision as of 01:44, 22 August 2023

Ws write.png

Wikispooks policy is intended to help someone from a Wikipedia background adjust the Wikispooks policy of what is suitable material. Definitions of "bias", "Neutral Point of View" and (particularly) "notability of sources" may be unfamiliar, since Wikispooks does not has no fielty to the authorities and their commercially-controlled media. Some extracts from Wikipedia's definition of "Neutral Point of View" [1] will suffice to illustrate the differences.

Importance of Evidence

Opinions are helpful, but become much more so when they explain evidence which is readily observed and generally agreed upon. It is easy to cite sources, and help readers track information back to primary sources. Therefore, you are highly recommended to cite your sources by using a pair of <ref> tags containing the reference (e.g. the URL of a webpage).This will display in the main text as a small supertext numeral, while adding the reference to the list at the bottom[2].

If you lack evidence for your viewpoints, you may still include them, but should offer an explanation of why this might not be available. You can indicate doubt about a particular statement by using the template:cn template.[3]

Uploading documents

If you have non-classified (or de-classified) documents of particular relevance to deep politics and/or if you think that the originals may be removed from elsewhere on the internet, you may upload them to this site.

Trustworthiness of sources

Wikispooks has a simple policy about reliability of sources: - all sources are potentially useful, so automatic assumption of good or bad faith is unhelpful. If you doubt the usefulness of material added by another Wikispooks editor, the recommended first course of action is to discuss this publicly in their talk page. A public discussion through talk pages, by recording all opinions expressed, may help facilitate reflection on reliability or lack of it.

Direct quotations

Tracking the origin of statements is very important on Wikispooks. Direct quotes can be a particularly effective way of elucidate a page's subject - and are therefore particularly useful in articles about people. Quotes of a few words are best done inline in the normal fashion with quotation marks ("). For quotes of more than a couple of lines, the best presentation is probably one or other of the Box templates. Long quotes do not belong in the main: namespace - where the quoted material is particularly important, editors should usually important the whole thing into the Document: namespace, for which separate rules apply. Use Template:Uncertain origin‎ to flag any violations of this policy.

Majority ⊬ Accuracy

 Much madness is divinest Sense
 To a discerning Eye
 Much Sense - the starkest Madness
 'Tis the Majority
 In this, as All, prevail
 Assent - and you are sane
 Demur - you're straightway dangerous
 And handled with a Chain

Poem 435 - Emily Dickinson, c. 1862


Wikipedia:

"In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the super-majority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."

Wikipedia equates majority with accuracy. To focus on the specific example, it is quite possible that many non-Western Establishment academics would reverse the relative Wiesenthal/Irving super-majority/minority proportions stated here. Add to that the propensity of certain western countries to imprison people like Irving for simply expressing a minority opinion, and the mainstream assumption that we have anything approaching freedom of expression, speech and research becomes risible. This is not to defend Irving's opinions, but merely to note how 'The majority' imposes absurd orthodoxies which limit the boundaries of allowable debate and are thus reflected in all commercially-controlled media - including Wikipedia.

Professional ⊬ Reliable

Wikipedia:

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth should not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority."

The same problem recurs, and note that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources" includes those who can be manipulated by money (such as newspaper columnists, television reporters and other professionals). Blogs may be judged reliable "if the writers are professionals". A "significant viewpoint" is of course no less of a value judgment - to illustrate, wind the clock back some 450 years and replace 'flat-earth' with 'Heliocentric'. So NPOV is about echoing a concensus reality, which gives prominence to viewpoints backed by big money.

No Illusion of 'Neutrality'

Wikispooks intends to give primacy to solid evidence-based viewpoints, even if unpopular, rather than affording spurious credibility to so called "reliable sources/significant viewpoints". 'Neutral', impartial judgments are a fiction - even when said sources are claimed to to be purely scientific, let alone if they are political. Such 'neutrality' in fact gives a grossly disproportionate weight to the Establishment view (what Wikispooks terms the "official narrative").

As John Pilger has noted, value free journalism is a fiction, an excuse for a craven refusal to challenge the status-quo. Decisions about what to write and what not to write are inevitably partisan. For example, note the BBC's refusal to broadcast the "Disasters Emergency Committee" Appeal for Gaza [4] in January 2009 on the grounds of 'maintaining impartiality'. Wikispooks editors need make no apologies for editing according to their personal convictions.

One result of this inclusive approach is that page deletions are rare on Wikispooks. Deletions are reverted unless a valid reason[clarification needed] for deletion is present.

No 'Taboo' Ideas

Wikispooks is a forum for exploring ideas of all types. Wikispooks aims to avoid taboos which rule ideas out of court a priori, though Wikispooks aims to explore reality, not fantasy. For your ideas to persist in the main: namespace, you should be prepared to present at some evidence and/or logic to back them up; persistent failure to explain the relevance of your contributions to articles will result in them being reverted or moved to a sub-page of your userpage.

Non-violent communication

Full article: Non-violent communication

Editors should communicate non-violently, in the sense that they try not to use nebulous enemy images or polarising perspectives. Reports about the activities of the Russian establishment, for example, should be aware that the threat of "Russian Propaganda" has been hyped in recent years by Propornot and a UK counterpart, the Integrity Initiative. This is not to say that Russia does not engage in propaganda, but that it is certainly not the only government to do so, and note should be taken of lies by other groups such as NATO.[5]

General Courtesy

Collaboration with a community of editors around the world is sometimes challenging, so editors should maintain courtesy at all times, especially with new editors who may be unfamiliar with procedure. Please be mindful that not all Wikispooks editors have native level fluency in English and that misunderstandings can happen in any case.

The talk pages are good venues for discussion about article content. In particular, if you revert someone's edits, you are recommended either leave an explanation on that page's talk page or on the user's page. At a very minimum, use the comment box to explain the reversion.

Editor undertakings

Full article: Wikispooks:Editor Undertakings

Editors are expected to comply with a number of undertaking detailed in the Editor undertakings page. Anyone intending to apply for editor privileges should read this page before doing so.

Summary

  1. Official announcements, documents, press releases etc. important to the maintenance of hierarchy should be treated with skepticism proportional to the legal power, wealth or other such interest in the establishment hierarchies of their source.
  2. Such information should be assumed to be issued in furtherance of a hidden - if sometimes more or less obvious - agenda and thus designed to mislead rather than to inform.
  3. Reputation, Position, Rank, Place etc., in Establishment hierarchies and protocols are pretentious conceits serving establishment agendas (hidden or otherwise) and thus more deserving of ridicule than respect.

References

  1. Wikipedia 'Neutral Point of View'
  2. Like this!
  3. cn = "citation needed"
  4. BBC refusal to broadcast the "Disasters Emergency Committee" Appeal for Gaza - The Guardian January 2009
  5. For example, a NATO spokesman denied all knowledge of Operation Gladio, but the group later admitted that this had been incorrect.[citation needed]
Wikispooks logo.png Policy.png
Wikispooks
Policy
Wikispooks to do.png Tools2.png SMW.png Help.png