User:Mateo LeFou

I would just love it if this were made into a WP:PECT section. That's not very likely, though, so for what it's worth here are my

Principles for Editing Controversial Topics (PECT)

1. Say it once, say it clean. Encyclopedias don't belabor a point. If a point is valid a single statement establishes that; if a point is contentious, multiple restatements of it begin to resemble persuasion, which is by definition POV. (See Hugo Chavez talk, "unassailable lead" sxn)

2. Oddly, a great number of citations begins to undermine -- not enhance -- credibility. I can find sources & references to back up just about any harebrained contention I dream up. With a little extra effort, I could make sure each of these sources is (at least arguably) "reliable". But that's not what an encyclopedist does. An encyclopedist will survey the available information and summarize it, paying due attention to qualification and ramification. If half a dozen sources say policy X was disastrous, and another half-dozen say it's the best thing since sliced bread, she will calmly say that the verdict is not yet in, and she will encapsulate the best arguments for and against. Rarely, if ever, will she throw in a single statistical metric and pretend that judgment can be passed based on that.

3. Wait. Almost all sources of information embarrass themselves when they report on the very-recent. From wikipedia's treatment of Ken Lay's death in its first few hours, to the classic Daily Show montage of 24-hour news channels reporting on the Miami Airport shooting, the lesson comes time and again that speculation is intellectual poison. It generates heat but no light. Media obsession with getting exclusive scoops, with being first out of the gate with a story, derives from economic impulses. They have to cultivate an addiction-to-news in their viewership. They need eyeballs. Encyclopedias do not have to do this stuff. Wait, and facts will float to the top.

4. Follow the money plus, at no extra charge, the wisdom of crowds. Sad state of affairs, but many sources of information benefit from their readership's believing one thing rather than another. What is happening or what will happen is secondary to what people think about these issues. Imagine a world where "news" organizations are somehow compelled to predict what will happen, and their continued existence depends on the accuracy of their predictions. In accord with the principles of capitalism and self-interest, I suspect you would see a lot more careful work done on analysis/logic, and less on persuasion/propaganda. Tie the pundits' well-being to reality, rather than popularity, and you will erode demagoguery.

5. Try to find bias that reflects your own. It's a great exercise. Are you an environmentalist, pistoff that W has encouraged drilling in ANWR, dumped a bunch of arsenic in our rivers, or whatever? Go through the relevant pages looking for examples of people overstating the case. With Controversial Topics, it's not hard to find 'em. At some point you'll think: "Man, W is a bastard etc. but this edit doesn't really fit in; it crosses the line into bashing; it belabors a point; it selectively quotes questionable sources. ZOMG it's biased." If you can't bring yourself to revert it, put a comment in the talk page. There are bigger things than W being a bastard.

Why Chavez?

I'm prepared to come clean: I think Hugo Chavez will turn out to be one of the most important political figures of the period 2000-2050. Most people would probably say I lean left a bit, so there you go. I also lean libertarian; I'll figure out how to make that work on my own.

Far more important is that people get access to good information to make up their own minds. Chavez may turn out to have Castro's intolerance for dissent and critical thinking, or Guevara's stomach for merciless persecution e.g. of homosexuals. He may also turn out to have Mother Theresa's compassion for the impoverished and Thomas Jefferson's insight into the dangers of consolidated corporate/government power. He very likely has a mixture of all these. A balanced picture of the man, presented to those who are empowered to re-elect or de-elect him, will do the most good. Those people will make clear what is productive and what is unacceptable in his approach to statesmanship. He will respond to this. If you don't believe that, then it is likely you do not believe in democracy.

A little while ago, some news program was quickly glossing over world affairs (as is their bent) and one of the anchors referred to Chavez as "the dictator of Venezuela". Offhand, as if that was widely accepted as the true nature of his presidency. This is wrong, not because Chavez is God's gift to Venezuela, but because the assertion is debatable, and in fact is hotly debated. But there it was: that's the way one is supposed to think about Chavez. It was creepy; I wish I had the video clip. Long live youtube.

The old version of my page

Hey I'm LeFou and I don't do all that much here, but I'm pretty proud of how eclectic my tastes are. As a sample, here are the topics I contributed to or edited in October '05

Jesus

Shill

Scientigo (company)

Porkolt (Hungarian stew)

Helen Clark (prime minister of new zealand)

William Styron (writer)

Comparison of Linux Distributions (a comparison of linux distributions)

Scrofula (a gross disease)

Bioinformatics

Helena (novel by Evelyn Waugh)

That rocks.