When told to edit a page, in all honesty the first word on my mind was "Vandalize!". There are plenty of people/organizations/things that I would love to spread some infamy to. Ofcourse as any good wikipedian knows, doing so is hardly effective. Thus naturally I would seek to add new information or clean up unneccessary or otherwise biased information in such people/organizations/things instead.
One such page is the page for NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. First I must note that I loathe this page, due to the complexity of how the page is written and how difficult it is to understand what the page is saying at various parts of the page. The NAFTA is an incredibly controversial international treaty that can utterly threaten Democracy and Government of all countries involved, United States, Canada, and Mexico. Yet it dodges all chances to say this by using legal and jargon and statistics over real implications and effects of its parts. I would change this page by clarifying these pages so that the laymen can properly understand its history, implications, effects, and usage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I took a look at the Wikipedia entry for NAFTA and I found what I was looking for..I did not see any blatant bias. I realize that for some the article could be hard to follow due to the jargon used. But the article does do what it was meant to do. It gave us a history of the document, some effects and some criticisms that have been raised in the public eye. All of this backed with sources and public record statistics. So then when you say that the article should be fixed so we can properly understand its history, implications, effects, and usage...Why do I get the feeling that you want to see an overall political message from the article? You shouted loudly and clearly that NAFTA "can utterly threaten Democracy and Government of all countries involved, United States, Canada, and Mexico. Yet it dodges all chances to say this..." what you seem to be asking for is a biased view of NAFTA agreement to be shown. That is something that goes directly against the goal of Wikipedia. Therefor Wikipedia should stay as it is. Reporting public facts and statistics dealing with the agreement. You said that the article missed the chance to say what the "real implications and effects of its parts." But the information stated in the article IS some of the REAL IMPLICATIONS. Saying that NAFTA is a threat to democracy is not a real implication...that's an opinion piece. The fact that income for Mexican factories has gone up sense the signing of the agreement is a real implication. It is a result that can be statistically backed up.
ReplyDeleteI find it sadly ironic that you said that you would clean up biased information at the start yet didn't catch the fact that your opinion might be clouding your view of the article. When editing Wikipedia remember that the goal is not an opinion but a fact.
I have never stated that the page lied. the page did not however include the following
ReplyDeleteunder NAFTA the united states almost had to pay millions to a canadian company because of a NAFTA suit that challenged the decision made by the supreme court. Or that Metaclad won millions off of Mexico while trying to reopen a toxic dump site that was fought off by its people through a democratic process, and its national courts. That is not statistic, but that is the true implication. Nor does it list the chief negotiator for NAFTA, whom also retired and began a consulting firm that consulted on suing countries under chapter 11. Or that its court trials include no elected officials, legislators, nor is it open to public but a closed tribunal. Research before you speak. and Wikipedia-ing something does not count as research. and lastly do not throw words into other people's mouths.
Alright I have unjustly hit you with the angry stick...for that I apologize. Can you please point out where I said that you said the page lied? I don't remember even implying that...My point was that your objections seemed to focus only on the lack of negative perspective about these issues. Did I throw words into your mouth? I'm not sure that sharing what I felt was your general message really became putting words in your mouth. Again can you please point out exactly where I did this in my reply.. I really would like to see what you saw. Now for the part where I have to ask for you to look at the NAFTA page again. You said that the page didn't mention the Canadian company trying to sue for damage... please check section about chapter 11.. I'm guessing you are referring to Methanex, who filed a US$970 million suit against the United States... Just below this part is in fact the Metaclad story you talked about. These are in the article. These like statistics are at a basic level, FACTS. It happened. Now while I also agree that knowing things who created what company in order to profit from chapter 11 or what went down during a lawsuit is useful information. Such information in my mind delves into subjects that cannot really be displayed without acceptable levels of bias. These stories behind the facts might also in the scope of things not be important enough to mention. You mentioned that the article in your mind was already hard to understand. Would adding these pieces of information improve the article or harm it even more?
ReplyDeleteAgain I'm sorry if you felt I was too harsh. I personally went too far trying to defend what I felt was Wikipedias strength. I feel that in the sea of blogs and wikis out there, having a place for displaying facts in a unbiased as possible manner is a good thing. So I jumped on what I felt was a plea for a biased opinion. I do agree that Wikipedia-ing something cannot be our true research. While useful for a quick check on basic facts, without the opinions that usually come with them it is not useful for our academic research.
enough with the apologetics. when "lied" i meant blatant bias, and I apologize. the page does not have "Blatant" bias. Its bias stands in its organization and description. tell me, from reading that page what did you gather? from the article alone, what does chapter 11 do? and I was not referring to Mathanex, which is one case. I was referring to Loewes case which threatened to challenge a supreme court ruling. now does the page on Metalclad tell you that the entire community had days of relentless protest, referendums, and etc and used all of their democratic rights? Or that MTBE was banned because it was a health threat?
ReplyDeleteIt would do you good to know what forms bias comes in. and It would do you well to know that because certain information results in a certain opinion does not form a bias. To say that these certain court rulings occured because of so and so reason and resulted in so and so is a fact. If the causes and result just happen to be what people think is bad, its not because the article is biased but because people think what happened was bad.
Certainly after a long examination onecanget some grasp of what it does. But thats not the point, its a public encyclopedia not a legal report. The quality of an article is not judged alone on its content of facts or the existance of bias, but on how its presented to the audience. just from your first response I can already tell you did not understand exactly how that piece of law worked. And thats the problem. You are not an economist or a lawyer, and neither am I, and certainly not anyone who would go to wikipedia to seriously learn what it is about.