I have reviewed the video start to finish for the 4th time this morning trying to figure out what the fucking hell you're talking about.
I did not watch your video. I went to the Fox News website, as I stated, and also read an article on Sanger in The Independent to get his comments. Also read a bit about the underpinnings of Wiki, in general. I much prefer text to video. It registers better with me. Also prefer to know my source.
While he did, properly, refer to the "establishment" perspective being predominant, there can be no confusion that he is specifically calling out liberal bias
I treated "establishment" and "liberal bias" as the same thing. You have ingrained that new view in me. You call the GOP establishment liberal. The reality based GOP, which is never-Trump, to you is liberal, no longer conservative. You call even Brumar liberal. And over the last few years I have come to equate the positions and attitudes of 1) establishment, 2) reality-based, and 3) RINO. Sanger was clearly viewing things from your angle. Thus, the liberal bias he spoke of is the same as establishment perspective.
He made it abundantly clear that the outset style of Wikipedia was that you would find multiple points of view, with an understanding that two things can be true at one time of the same set of facts.
Quote from Sanger:
"There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard of journalistic ‘false balance,’ which is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. So, which is it, neutrality or both sides? Make up your mind. He seems to be ambivalent. How does one do neutrality? The only choices I can conjure are 1) objective or 2) both sides.
I don't know how you turned his comments into what you posted but they weren't what HE said.
In both my last post and this one I included what he said in his own words. Note the quotation marks.
Encyclopedias are supposed to be establishment just as dictionaries are supposed to be establishment. If they mention controversy, it's controversy that occurs within the 40 yard lines. They don't contain fringe material.
Your struggle with this, seems to me, is that you don't recognize that you are fringe. Fringe has traditionally been dismissed in serious renderings. That the fringe is more highly populated than it used to be makes it seem weighty--as equivalent in substance as it is in volume, thus worthy of equal time. But the ideas, however popular, are still fringe, only more commonly held. They have still not been established. Wiki is establishment not only in the sense of political mainstream but also in the sense of containing what has been established through proof or consensus. Encyclopedias aren't supposed to do fringe.
Re truth, establishment is not necessarily truth, just what has the weight of truth behind it at a given point in time, is predominant, is the default unless and until proven otherwise.
I remember when I found the establishment stodgy. It's still stodgy, but there's also value in solidity. |
