From the last version of "Neutral point of view" policy I wrote before leaving #Wikipedia in 2002:
"There is another reason to commit ourselves to a nonbias policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, ...
... this is conducive to our readers’ feeling free to make up their own minds for themselves, and thus to encourage in them intellectual independence. So totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, ...
... if we succeed in adhering to our nonbias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers’ competence to form their own opinions themselves."
Wikipedia DESPISES this view today.
It goes on: "Texts that present the merits of multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism. This is something that nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree is a good thing."
Further down: "according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or carefully but subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct."
Compare with Wikipedia's current practice.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I guess this is common knowledge by now. Yet, for some reason, we pretend it isn’t part of our reality. As horrifying as it is, it is good and necessary that we will be reminded from time to time.
Imagine the amount of specialized knowledge it requires to deal intelligently with all the problems of a 21st century megastate, from foreign policy, to finance, business, and economics, to every aspect of American society.
This is important. 👇
Call them "bureaucrats," but they include the Joint Chiefs, deep CIA, FBI, and NSA insiders, the extremely sophisticated diplomatic corps, the Fed Board, DoE nuclear security officials, etc., etc.
The Deep State, right?
Those people represent a massive and slow-changing center of power. The same goes for the party apparatus of the Republicans and Democrats. Those people are extremely powerful. And I'm not talking about elected officials.
@21WIRE @elonmusk Any rising (or new and already dominant) system will be carefully studied and ruthlessly gamed. Anyone who has watched the development of different social media systems knows this. There are people who make their careers in PR and intelligence on this. @TYonClubhouse
@21WIRE @elonmusk @TYonClubhouse Remember too how closely Twitter worked with spy agencies. Why suppose this has changed? Are we just going to *trust* that, when it matters to the Establishment, they will always allow facts to be endorsed by this system? 🤔
@21WIRE @elonmusk @TYonClubhouse I don’t suppose that *anyone* centrally controls how very large blocs of Community Notes all vote? 🤔
Musk: There’s a new plan to increase revenue. We charge $8/month for blue checks.
Investor: Sorry, but that’s ridiculous. Nobody will pay that.
Musk: Oh? But you forget, conservatives think I’m one of them. $8/month to support the cause! Own the libs!
👇
Emp.: But then you alienate all the liberal A-listers who gave the blue check its cachet in the first place.
Musk: Temporarily. In 2023 we hire a new liberal CEO who resumes the crackdown on misinformation.
Inv.: Well, then you’ll lose all the conservatives!
👇
Musk: No, that’s not how this works. The real functional effect of the blue check is to boost visibility. That’s the only thing that matters. After months of enjoying higher visibility, conservatives will stay on board just not to be suppressed.
I might be wrong that transgenderism is just a dangerous fad.
Thread:
Many people who seriously think they are the caring, decent, loving ones—not ironically, but really and truly—go to schools and churches where gender will be optional and trans kids are normal and everywhere.
They will BE the Establishment. They know they’re liberal, but also they’re the normal smart people.
To them, the weirdos who reject transgenderism will increasingly look like the racists of the 50s and the homophobes of 80s: embarrassing at best, just plain evil at worst.
You (my regular followers) and I know there is a massive difference between loving your black brothers and sisters as equals, on the one hand, and indulging what turns out to be a pathological sexual fetish, on the other.
But the Establishment normies don’t know this. At all.
When I first heard about it in the mid-teens (2015?), the notion of “medical transition” of children struck me as wrong, but I didn’t instantly think it was evil and should be banned.
Frankly, when I first heard of it, I wasn’t quite sure I believed it or understood even what was going on.
We all have learned a lot since then.
Kids can’t consent to such life-altering procedures, in the same way they can’t consent to sex. So many kids later regret it.
Parents have no right to consent on behalf of their kids; no one has the right to consent, on behalf of another human being, to amputate a perfectly healthy and well functioning body part.
Doctors have no right to accept parental approval or child requests for such procedures.