In the previous episode, I spoke to you in a rush all the pain I think the word "official." As I have nothing intelligent to say, as from there on to power my blog.
Official, she , adj. and subst. : Emanating from the government or administrative authority recognized
immediately dispel a misunderstanding. Despite my low-anarchism of chronic my-face contempt mocking the authority and government, I recognize that it is sometimes useful to have standards that have legal value, history that is able to understand all of us, the League of people living with each other . However, it stops there. In particular, I avoid using that term as a synonym for "true."
On Wikipedia, we have a gizmo called neutral point of view "that nobody ever understands. The idea is to include all relevant perspectives. In practice, it's totally intuitive-cons (the human brain must be wired together). To compensate, I guess we always try to give a higher viewpoint by calling it "true" because if it's true, other views are false and should not be mentioned (a tactic absurd when you look at the concept of NPOV, but overall it works). And what better than the official view of the higher court to return all the opponents on the ropes?
I suspect that behind this search for the official, hiding a real desire for authority and a real fear of heights. The authority to make sure someone can confirm that what they tell you is just (or, conversely, you can say we lie to you), fear of vacuum to avoid thinking that he might not have a definitive answer. In both cases, it assumes that there is somewhere a place where the rows are all true versions of everything. Despite everything we tried to make you think, this is not correct.
Wikipedia is not an administration or a registrar of state decisions. The official view is probably relevant, but it is rare that it is the only one. Let some of the official rock anyhow.
0 comments:
Post a Comment