I made some more edits, and totally omitted the stuff equating "criminal versatility" with corporate mergers. That's just too propagandistic to stand.
I'm tempted to edit even more, because I feel that Richard has violated etiquette here. I've gone to the mat trying to help remove what Richard perceived as bias from Tim's description of anarchy, and I'm repaid with propaganda? I figure I'm too annoyed right now to make all the changes that this article now needs.
-- JimboWales
This convenient definition of propaganda as "an argument or viewpoint I strongly disagree with that may be widely convincing to others" destroys the value of the wikipedia.
It would be, if that were my definition; however it is not. In this context, I mean obviously inflammatory statements designed to prejudice the reader without rational merit.
Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to establish facts or is it to promulgate some dominant point of view?
To present facts. We can present facts _about_ bizarre points of view such as yours, but we must not present your bizarre point of view _as fact_. I'm sure you can see the difference.
Because if your objection is based on what I said being controversial instead of inaccurate (which it is not) then you've decided it's the latter.
My objection is precisely that what you wrote is inaccurate. I am willing to go further than inaccurate and say it was nonsense.
Unless you believe the views of anarchists to be outright lies then I don't see what rational basis there can be to suppress them on a page whose express purpose is explaining the views, beliefs and actions of anarchists.
Even if the views of anarchists are outright lies, that is no reason to suppress an encyclopedic discussion of those views. It is a good reason to omit inflammatory falsehoods that fail to shed light on anything.
If you want to write 'Anarchists believe that corporate mergers are an instance of criminal flexibility', I will have no complaint about that. But I will add a paragraph pointing out why many other people will disagree.
Please understand why I am upset. I helped you make changes to things that you disagreed with, in an effort to achieve consensus. I thought, and argued on your behalf, that you only wanted to present certain ideas fairly and in a neutral manner. But I now believe that you only want to put forward your own political agenda.
''No, not really. I don't care what the ideology, it should not be presented. Note the difference between stating facts about an ideology, and stating that the ideology is fact. This goes for all ideologies.''
The only thing I care about is that they not provide gross verifiable inaccuracies and that the historical context shows the relationships between the various ideologies (the original entry on Anarchism failed on both counts).
And that entry was changed, right?
You confuse neutrality and blandness; neutrality is impossible because reality is not neutral.
I disagree.
As for having a political agenda, everyone has their own political agenda or follows someone else's. I find that even the most twisted libertarian arguments are more insightful and informative than the bland pap of the dominant ideology. I am not apolitical ("impartial") and my respect for other ideologies takes the form of limiting myself to pointed comments instead of taking the risk of bawlderizing them (and if you can give an explanation and references to show that my conception of anarchocapitalism is wrong then I would appreciate it). I think this is eminently fair and I am upset at your insinuations to the contrary.
Most (probably all) anarchists believe that corporations are unfair, unjust, immoral and criminal. In pointing out that corporations are psychopathic I did no more than present facts to justify this viewpoint. If other people disagree, it is only because of ignorance or irreducible ideological differences.
Corporations are psychopathic. If you take the items of the PCL-R then it is easy to see that corporations have all of the traits listed (except for a couple that are completely inapplicable). Further, the defining characteristic of psychopathy (the lack of any human empathy, of any emotional connection to human beings) is easy to observe in corporations. A common objection is that non-human entities like corporations cannot be judged by human standards. This is bogus (equivalent to the claim by Christian apologists that their god is just without being accountable to human justice) and is easily countered with the observation that cooperatives lack most (or all) of the traits that make corporations psychopathic. Another common objection is that psychopathy does not matter. At best, this is an irreducible difference in people's value judgements. At worse, these people should consult actual psychologists for their opinion on this subject.
Now, if you're going to be honest about why people don't see corporations as psychopathic then you'll have to explain that most people just refuse to think about the matter. But considering the fact that most people still hold the impression of corporations as big faceless behemoths despite the massive amounts of public relations work done by corporations to counter this impression, I wouldn't be too sure of even that much. Perhaps my opinion isn't controversial. Perhaps it's merely very clearly expressed and convincing enough that it makes people who defend corporations squirm in helpless desperation. -- RichardKulisz
Perhaps there is a better forum for this type of debate. I'm not the least bit interested in debating with you the truth or falsehood of these claims. I am only interested in seeing that everything gets stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)