Talk:World government/NPOV conflict

World government NPOV Vote (0/1/0)

• Just a request - could people please remember to sign their votes with 4 tildes (~~~~) and update the vote tally when they vote? Thanks. --Goobergunch

Biased

Not Biased

1. See comments above ... → Frisbeeteria Θtalk 02:52, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Neutral / not clear

Comments/Questions

Frisbeeteria: Hmmm. NPOV notice, but only original author footprints. Interesting.  ;)

• accuses self*

Well, I'm leaving this message so the forum crowd (read: HotRodia) has a change to edit. Knoot 12:01, 8 Oct 2004 (GMT)

"...has a 'change' to edit." I think you mean "chance". Sorry, I'm just in editing mode today. :D It's that English Ed. Major in me. I made a few small grammatical and spelling changes (before I created an account), and when I have more time I'll try to do a more thorough edit for readability and neutrality. It looks good on first glance, Knoot. I approve of your changes. ~HotRodia 5:02, 11 October 2004

Tnx. Knoot 22:07, 11 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Very Biased

This article is very biased, and is based on political theories (largely coming from an individual). Personally I feel it should be clearly connected as a role-play tool to the individuals that believe in this concept.

A clear example of why this current draft if biased is how it does not describe a "right-wing", and suggests that "left-wing" nations are seeking to influence other nations. The implication is that non-left-wing nations are not doing so.

Personally I don't see enough "neutral" material in this post to actually believe that minor edits can fix the problem here, but my suggestion is that this be relabeled / moved to be clearly viewed by new readers as being "World Government (Opinion from Neo-Liberals)", which I feel is the term being promoted here.

I also suggest that since it is not really clear what Neo-Liberal means, that the theory of what they are, also be described.

Personally I feel it is a bit of a shame, because the terms used in this article really are self-applied labels and don't fit in with the UN Categories of nation types.

I'd rather the minor edit be made (i.e. moving this opinion piece) and then focusing on actually improving the NSWiki by adding entries that would actually be useful to more than players trying to sell a single style of play / world vision.

(p.s. I'm new to leaving comments, and this can be edited by all ... though I'd ask that 3rd party edits be used in this case. This is me Michael ... I wasn't sure how to properly leave a trail to my comment, but felt it important!) -- Mikitivity

Reply

Well, I *am* glad that some others of the OMG SECRAT forum think the minor edits solved a whole lot of things, and I'm looking forward to some more editing by HotRodia. I already adressed many of your concerns but you continue to say you only give 'examples.' I would love a more comprehenisve criticism.

I can try to understand your personal feelings but if even vastly different players like Ecopoeia and (largely) Hotrodia seem to be able to accept it. (As well as some positive IRC comments from others.) I hope to explain some choices to you, and that some sort of neutral exchange can take place. I welcome third-party input here from others too. Still, in the end I *do* feel that there are enough people who think this could be reworked into something reasonably unbiased to give it a shot rather then just putting it away in the OMG BIASED punishment corner. This thing has been improved a LOT since its original form and I think it would be good to improve it some more. That is what the edit button is for.

See also: "Wikipedia: World government and its external links, which have, in large part, been an inspiration for this article. (Definitions, groupings.) Note also that its NPOV is not disputed by anyone else in the 'real' Wiki.

First: the groupings. If you look at the description of the title of the groupings bit is: 1 Proponents of world government and their power It is important to note that this is not supposed to be a comprehensive description of all factions in NS, or in the NSUN, but rather only a description of those groups which would want a "World Government" of some kind for various motives (which are explained). It does not have anything to do with UN categories. So the question is: do you feel that I have missed important NSUN groups aspiring world government then or described the cateogories I mentioned in a wrong way?

To give you an idea where I got this from: these entries are taken from the (undisputed) Wikipedia: World Government entry on the main WikiPedia and I have adapted them for NS (namely by grouping anarchists with communists and using a more broad scope since they tend to mingle more in NS, and by removing the 'conspiracy theory' bit which is irrelevant for NS.) Did you miss the bits on fascism and neoliberalism? I would tend to think that they qualify as "non left-wing" groupings.

Definition of neo-liberal. Do you see the shiny link to "Wikipedia: Neoliberalism". If you look carefully you see that it is also in the entry. The really short description in the entry itself is from the afforementioned 'world government' entry, and it closely matches the Wiki definitions and my own textbook definiton. (Of a book on Sociology and society written by a Mr. Faulks - sciency guy extraordinaire of something. EDIT: Link: here) This link is there for people who want to know what it actually is. This is IMO more efficient then elaborately describing the phenomenon. Note that the NPOV of the Neoliberalism Wiki article is not doubted either and neither are any of the other links AFAIK. Knoot 20:14, 12 Oct 2004 (GMT)

This article looks neutral to me. --Defaultia 20:56, 12 Oct 2004 (GMT)

If it were netural, then in addition there would be references to left and right-wing groups. I didn't see that originally. And, I don't really feel that in the game that there are *any* groups aspiring to world a single world government. Personally, I'd like to see perhaps some of these nations revealed. Bottom line it still reads has an anti-UN piece and comes across as though there is some struggle of conservative nations against a series of organized liberal groups. I've seen nothing like that in the UN forums or votes. The most organized NS groups are actually the invader groups and seem to have little to do with the UN. The most fundamental question I have is why do you feel we need this piece? Discussions of the theory of "World Government" are by their nature opinionated, and frankly I don't think you'd care for me to begin a UN category entry on the concept of "Use of Propoganda" or "Use of McCarthyism" in UN debates. And yet both of these are common enough theories in the game as well. Mikitivity 02:02, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT) Mikitivity

Given that over two-thirds of NS aren't UN members and don't frequent the UN forum, it's reasonable to assume that there have been and currently are many active anti-UN groups, with assorted agendas. Their absence from the UN forum is not definitive in any way.

I've been creating Regions pages here in the Wiki for large regions that have Wiki members, but those members hadn't yet posted a region. I've visited several regions pages, some of them 100 members or more, where UN membership was listed as reason for expulsion. I consider that proof positive that anti-NSUN sentiment exists, and it's been my experience that there is more against than for (with a strong third group of "ehh, don't bother with the UN - it screws up your stats" crowd.)

Representing the entire NS spectrum of political thought in a single document simply isn't possible, but I think this document (so far) is fairly evenhanded. I would like to point out that the nature of a Wiki explicitly allows for the collaborative process, but so far the entire contextual changes have been made by Knootoss, with a couple of other authors contributing only grammar and formatting adjustments. If Mikitivity or anyone else wanted to add a balancing paragraph or two, they certainly could. Subject to the fact that they too could be adjusted or replaced, of course.

In summary, I disagree with the NPOV call. I think it's fine. → Frisbeeteria Θtalk 02:52, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Pudding 05:42, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)

This article is incredibly biased as well as outright inaccurate. However, the crux of the NPOV violation is that this is not marked ‘K’s propaganda about the UN and Globalism.’ You cannot insert a handful of hedge paragraphs and undo an article full of bias; asking those who disagree with the bias of this article to contribute is asking them to uphold the framework as it is already constructed, viz. how terms are defined, used and colored. You cannot ignore the impact of the implicit assumptions included in expository writing, if one was to grant, arguendo, that this is an expository piece. Because this comes from a biased framework, and is not labeled as such, it cannot be viewed of neutral.

So, since every article is based on the creators biased views, you wouldn't mind me marking any and all of your articles as biased, since they are, well, biased due to the fact that you (an individual with defined, 'biased' views), and requesting their deletion? Good to know. Oh, and it is *very* amusing that you just rant and complain and whine, rather than, say, contribute. Very productive point of view, you have. Rezo 08:58, 13 Oct 2004 (GMT)