I used to believe that I possessed the ability to take any side of any issue, and argue passionately about it. However, as my work on the Electoral College will show, if I have trouble formulating logical supporting points of the opposition, I have trouble writing the opposition effectively. It doesn't matter if the logic is flawed or downright evil, as long as it is logical.
As an example, I'm a life long Anarcho-capitalist, and Libertarian / libertarian. I find it strangely entertaining arguing about (for one small example) the moral, philosophical, economic, and political advantages of Nazism, even though I personally passionately disagree.
This causes me *more* problems as I write on Wikipedia. Rather than this ability providing me an easy way to write 'neutrally', I find it *very* difficult. I reject the 'objective' stance on principle. I would prefer to have contentious debates resolved not by striving to write every article 'neutrally', but by having rabid partisan debate provide me each polarized position, along with those poor fools who muddle along somewhere in the middle. Again, to illustrate, look at the Talk page of Electoral College. That polarized debate - rather than someone attempting to write NPOV - is creating a much better article.
Note to friends of mine (who keep bothering me about this): If you want to know which pieces of articles I have written, or otherwise how I've been edited, click the History option located on the left side of the browser in its own frame. This will show you how the piece has evolved. Again, everything I've written has been improved by editing, so this really should not matter. But if you need to cite it for something and it is important, you might want to cite both the link, and the revision (by date).
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|