To a POV pusher:
- Impartial: anyone who hasn't said no yet.
- Fair: anyone who agrees.
- Biased: anyone who's said no.
- Corrupt: anyone who's said no and made it stick.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Flying monkeys
Translate
Spellbooks
-
▼
2009
(125)
-
▼
May
(13)
- The maturity test
- Wikipedia's longest arbitration case
- The dead trees standard
- Wikipedia's longest 'Did you know?' submission
- Useless self-disclosures
- Power and cluelessness
- Citation needed
- Fred the great
- Proof positive that not enough women edit Wikipedia
- The POV pusher's lexicon, continued
- The POV pusher's lexicon
- Legitimate street gangs
- Swine flew
-
▼
May
(13)
Ruby slippers
Posts
Cauldron
- Book spines and scanner distortion
- Chromolithography and clone stamping
- Color bars: whether to trust them?
- Correcting deficient fixative in old photographs
- Correcting distortion on old posters with perspective cropping
- Correcting for directional scanner lighting
- Crop margins
- Fixing smudged captions
- Histogram management with the curves tool
- Patch repair for complex damage
- Patching a missing corner in a glass plate photograph
- Patching background data to achieve a good crop
- Previewing histogram adjustments
- Recovering facial detail with the shadow/highlight tool
- Removing fingerprints
- Repairing damaged skies
- Rotation and wide angle distortion
- Scratch removal
- Scratches and glass plate photography
- Selecting a restoration project: book illustrations
- Selecting a restoration project: photography
- Stain removal: advanced
- Stain removal: basic
- Stitching old panorama photography
- Vertical banding
- Working on small flaws first
3 comments:
The very word "POV pusher" is to me another proof of the existence of relative subjectivity. While it's worth noting that it isn't something to be "for" it is a good exercise to think that arguing against POV-pushers might by mechanism make oneself into a POV-pusher as well.
POV pushers often make an argument like that: you disagreed with me, therefore you are pushing from the opposite direction. It's hilarious to get accused of that by extremists from both sides.
Many years ago I interned on the staff of a comedy television show. One of my duties was to process the incoming viewer mail. Our Halloween episode that year was a little edgy; the writers wondered if they'd gone too far. Three Christian fundamentalists wrote to complain. Then a Druid also wrote to tell us we were unfair to druids.
That's when show's producers laughed and agreed we'd found the right balance.
I've also had the problem of being told off on Wikipedia by people on both sides of an issue. At one point I was keeping track of everything I've been called. I lost track about when I could attach somehting like "hellbound atheist", "communist pig", "capitalist corporate lackey" and "Creationist idiot" in front of my name.
That said, making everyone made isn't necessarily a good sign. Sometimes NPOV really will annoy one group much more than it will annoy the other. One good example is the article on Kent Hovind. I've been looking for years for positive stuff about the guy in reliable sources. And it is close to impossible to find. But his supporters are still terribly annoyed and we do get people also saying the article isn't negative enough.
Also, sometimes one has irritated everyone simply due to sloppiness. I've seen this happen for example on some of the more delicate Israeli-Palestinian conflict related articles where someone comes through and makes edits that just show a complete lack of basic background knowledge. Of course editors on both sides of that conflict conclude that the new editor is on the other side. Hanlon's Razor might apply a bit here.
Having irritated everyone can be a sign that one is doing well. But it isn't a guarantee.
Post a Comment