| Revision as of 00:06, 30 January 2006 editRiverrunrun (talk | contribs)16 editsNo edit summary | Revision as of 00:46, 30 January 2006 edit undoESkog (talk | contribs)Administrators79,877 edits ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| Please let me know how to correct erroneous and biased | Please let me know how to correct erroneous and biased | ||
| information on this "Naked Short Selling" page. | information on this "Naked Short Selling" page. | ||
| == Reply == | |||
| First, please keep in mind that we can't have a conversation if your username/IP changes every time you edit. If you could stick to this username for the duration, that would be helpful. | |||
| I am not an "official moderator" of Misplaced Pages; in truth, no one really is. We are all editors trying to work together to create the best encyclopedia possible. Among our guiding principles are a ] and a committment to ] whenever possible. I, along with other editors, felt that the version you continued to reinsert was extremely biased with a thesis that "naked short selling is bad." The article is not supposed to be making such an argument; it should only be outlining what it is and a discussion of major literature surrounding the subject. The page has been protected as a result of our edit war, and you are welcome to engage in the discussion on the page's ]. Our goal is to create a neutral version of the page that stands up to ]. | |||
| Here are some problems I had with your version of the page: | |||
| #"it is generally accepted... simple fraud" in the opening paragraph is clearly not true, and also uses ] in lieu of citing a source. | |||
| #The word "apologists" applied to those who argue it is not illegal is a very judgmental word. | |||
| #General phrasing - "It is difficult to argue with a straight face" - "Another canard that is floated by apologists" - "'''There is no controversy'''" - fly in the face of maintaining a neutral point of view. | |||
| #The Argument/Fact structure used in the Controversy section is not encyclopedic in the slightest, and is more correctly structured for an argumentative essay. That is ] what Misplaced Pages is about. | |||
| I hope these comments help, and feel free to engage in the discussion on the ] page. If you have any other questions about the process, my Talk page is always open. (])<sup>(])</sup> 00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:46, 30 January 2006
Policy of Neutrality
Your "Naked Short Selling" page is definitely biased in favor of the naked short seller. It is not neutral!
I have tried to replace it with factual information to no avail. A poster named ESKOG has entered a message to me that I am in violation of the "neutral" policy of Wikopedia. Either the author is not adequately knowledgeable regarding naked short selling or he is intentionally placing untruthful and biased information on this page.
I sincerely hope that this person is not an official moderator who controls this page. If this is an example of neutrality, it is blatantly hypocritical. Please let me know how to correct erroneous and biased information on this "Naked Short Selling" page.
Reply
First, please keep in mind that we can't have a conversation if your username/IP changes every time you edit. If you could stick to this username for the duration, that would be helpful.
I am not an "official moderator" of Misplaced Pages; in truth, no one really is. We are all editors trying to work together to create the best encyclopedia possible. Among our guiding principles are a neutral point of view policy and a committment to citing sources whenever possible. I, along with other editors, felt that the version you continued to reinsert was extremely biased with a thesis that "naked short selling is bad." The article is not supposed to be making such an argument; it should only be outlining what it is and a discussion of major literature surrounding the subject. The page has been protected as a result of our edit war, and you are welcome to engage in the discussion on the page's talk page. Our goal is to create a neutral version of the page that stands up to consensus.
Here are some problems I had with your version of the page:
- "it is generally accepted... simple fraud" in the opening paragraph is clearly not true, and also uses weasel words in lieu of citing a source.
- The word "apologists" applied to those who argue it is not illegal is a very judgmental word.
- General phrasing - "It is difficult to argue with a straight face" - "Another canard that is floated by apologists" - "There is no controversy" - fly in the face of maintaining a neutral point of view.
- The Argument/Fact structure used in the Controversy section is not encyclopedic in the slightest, and is more correctly structured for an argumentative essay. That is not what Misplaced Pages is about.
I hope these comments help, and feel free to engage in the discussion on the Talk:Naked short selling page. If you have any other questions about the process, my Talk page is always open. (ESkog) 00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)