Taking a more holistic view perhaps.

The answer to that differs on your political perspective.

Siding with whoever in power meets your financial goals.

The one where scientific point of view is balanced by the religious point of view captured to advance the wealth accumulation to the oligarchs.

Example: homosexuality is common in the nature. On the other hand it is also a perverse past time of the degenerates of modern society (things were better in the past, vote accordingly!)

I call anyone who agrees with my politics, or keeps quiet about theirs politically neutral.

A wise man once said, "You're either with us, or you're with the enemy"

I think that sums up US politics pretty well since 2016

'You Are Either With Us, Or With the Terrorists' - George W. Bush 2001-09-21

'Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.' Hillary Clinton 2001-09-13

I call people who don't care about the outcome of a particular issue that is a source conflict disinterested, and that's close enough to politically neutral to kiss it. Instead, on Wikipedia the people most involved and passionate about an issue will be the biggest contributors to entries related to it, and the side with the most paid contributors and/or internet-addicted contributors will run those pages like a fiefdom.

Both sides think you're biased. That's how the BBC does it.

How do you do this in a country with more than 2 political parties such as the United States [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_t...

Move to Canada, Germany, Australia or wherever.

> Move to Canada, Germany, Australia or wherever.

Your solution on how to cover a topic in a neutral fashion when there are more than 2 political parties is to move to a country where there are more than 2 political parties?

That doesn't seem like a productive comment.

A Wikimedia based in a country with much less polarised politics will have a much easier time with neutrality.

I guess I didn't include enough elaboration in my comment...

There are only two parties in Canada. Three if you count the Bloc.

That’s a weird comment. Were you trying to be sarcastic?

There are 3 major federal parties (Liberals, Conservatives, NDP), who received 33%, 33%, and 18% of the popular vote respectively.

There are two minor federal parties (Greens and the People’s party) who together took around 7% of the popular vote, and

Finally there is the Bloc Québécois. It is a federal party but it exists only in one province. It grabbed around 8% last time.

Of course those percentages aren’t entirely representative, because seats are won in a first-past-the-post style in each riding.

The NDP has never formed a federal government.

Pretending the US has more than two political parties is a weird hobby. There are only two that matter, and it can't be any other way with the current federal election system. It's a problem worth fixing but Wikipedia is not relevant to any solutions.

Ok but ideally the federal election system will be fixed eventually (and also most of the states). And I'd prefer if then we also didn't need to fix a bunch of other systems because they had a lot of 2 party assumptions baked into them.

Okay but your ideal scenario is not our current reality

The reality is that the US Federal government currently has elected members belonging to neither the Democratic nor Republican party [1] [2] (Sinema doesn't count since she changed her party after being elected). This has been true for the majority of the US's short existence.

There is no reason to make long-term decisions based on the current short-term circumstances of a two party dominance.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_Senate_elec...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_Senate_elec...

All of them caucus with one of the two major parties. As with so much in politics, it's a distinction without a difference.

Two-party dominance has been a feature of the American political scene since before the Civil War - that is, for most of its existence. I wouldn't call that "current short-term circumstances".

It's also very hard to change because both major parties benefit from the existing system and are protective of it, knowing full well that proportional representation would cost them a lot of votes. Republicans usually trot out the old "but small states!" canard, while Democrats are getting creative and claiming that IRV and RCV are racist because e.g. "majority voting may seem innocuous, but if the vote is racially polarized, “runoffs discriminate against Blacks because they are a minority of the voters.”"

Given that Congress has the final say on how federal elections are run, I find it rather unlikely that this is going to change anytime soon - at least, not as long as federal politics is consumed almost entirely by polarization and voting against rather than for.

> Two-party dominance has been a feature of the American political scene since before the Civil War

Really, since America had a meaningful national government with the Constitution rather than being a loose federation of states under the AoC.

The Federalists and Democratic-Republicans both were establisged, as was their duopoly, by 1792.

Indeed; I just didn't want to get into the whole debate about whether the replacement of the Whigs with the GOP as the other dominant party was a meaningful change or not. But it's safe to argue that the present system, including the specific parties in question, has been around for >160 years now.

s/Both/All/

Idk I live in a place like that I find there are still two broad groups of parties that rarely make coalitions a large distance across the divide. It's not like there is only one axis of politics but there is a sort of broad undercurrent of older/conservative and younger/change broad split.

But speaking to your point, there is no reason at all why a two party system is required to have a rule of thumb that if everyone thinks you're biased you're on the right track...

The BBC is not neutral. They are the mouthpiece of the UK government.

Hardly. They're pro-immigration, anti-Brexit, anti-any cuts anywhere for anything. They're the voice of the Guardian-reading middle classes.

This thread nicely illustrates the BBC's long balancing act.

From a (BBC) radio sitcom from the 80s:

> [interviewer to Director General of BBC] Director General, everyone seems to hate you. How would you respond?

> [DG] Well, I think that shows we have the balance about right.

Maybe in the 80s, these days they don't have the balance right.

This makes me think they do in fact have the balance right

Nah, for example Arabs love their coverage of the conflict. It's way more slanted than Reuters for example, and almost as slanted as Al Jazeera.

It's normal for news organizations to be accused of bias in the conflict, as you say, if both parties think that, that's normal.

But BBC has the lovely distinction of also being accused of anti-Semitism, which is a badge of honor that most news organizations have not received.

To be fair, pro-immigration is governnment policy too. Just for different reasons. The Tories want cheap labour/low wages, and sky-high house prices.

Fair point.

* * *

No, what they actually are is a mouthpiece for corporations and capital owners. Just like every other major media company out there. The government is also a mouthpiece for capital owners and corporations which is why you might think that

But being heavily biased in different directions on different issues doesn't sum up to neutrality.

You seem to be implying BBC is not biased. I have bad news for you in this case.

The BBC knowingly covered up kiddy fiddlers for years. Not exactly a stellar organization.

It's not possible if you want to do any analysis. Maybe if you just report statistics and limit your reporting to a set of uncontroversial fields. Best you could hope for in a think tank would be setting orthogonal to the main thrust of either side, like libertarian or something - some version of free software advocacy could also work.

telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in essence - dealing in facts, not editorializing.

For a think tank, presumably completely disconnected from the world, meditating on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (Though possibly that sort of awkward theology, too, is political; it's not something anyone ever did, rather a bit of anti-Catholicism from the reformation).

More seriously, when someone says "politically neutral", they typically mean "agrees with me". It's otherwise meaningless for basically anything which engages with the real world.

> More seriously, when someone says "politically neutral", they typically mean "agrees with me".

This is an empirical statement. What experience underlies it?

My experience (working across many sectors, including tech, government, and not for profits), is quite different.

I think it is better to say this… There are various possible meanings for ‘politically neutral’: A person or organization that

(a) is not tied to political organizations (for some definition of political);

(b) doesn’t take a position on political matters;

(c) does work that is both unaffected by politics and does not attempt to influence politics (IMO, impossible practically, but could be interpreted as a matter of degree)

"Is not", "doesn't", and "does" are not adequate for demonstrating an organization's apoliticalness, it simply demonstrates that they content with the status quo. The status quo is a political position, and depending on what about it you don't want to see change, can be a rather contentious one.

Interesting points to consider — thanks.

To clarify: endorsing the status quo is a political position. Not saying something is not identical to that. It of course can have probabilistic implications. In other words, silence doesn’t necessarily mean an entity (a person or org) is content with the status quo. It can be a strategic decision.

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

― Desmond Tutu

Random quotes add nothing to the conversation and won't convince anyone that didn't already agree with what it says.

To be fair, it was apropos, so I don’t think it was chosen randomly. :} The quote illustrates a relevant and related point of view. I probably agree with you in this sense: I would prefer the author take the time to say more and try to persuade.

A good quote. I also like:

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." - Martin Luther King Jr.

"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." - Abraham Lincoln

"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest." - Elie Wiesel

“Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - Robert F. Kennedy

Generally: For almost every piece of advice there are useful contrasts. More than useful, actually: necessary. Ideas that seem reasonable (even wise) in isolation often don’t ‘survive contact’ with broader thinking. In other words, an isolated idea may not prove applicable for a particular context.

Here are more quotes that can help weigh your choice to speak:

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." - Howard W. Newton (not Isaac Newton)

“What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Specifically: The early and outspoken critics sometimes get their heads cut off. Sometimes this galvanizes change. Sometimes this just helps the decapitator find his enemies more efficiently. Sometimes it is wiser — and more ethical — to quietly (even secretly) organize and act when you have a critical mass.

“The nail that sticks out gets hammered down." - Japanese Proverb

“A single arrow is easily broken, but not ten in a bundle." - Japanese Proverb

It means the green-username parent commenter is trying to derail the thread.

Not serving on the US Department of State's Foreign Affairs Policy Board would be a good start. To be fair, Katherine Maher took that role after her time as Wikimedia CEO. But landing such a role implies one is well connected, and she interned at the CFR [1] before her time at Wikimedia. In other words, she seems far too well connected to the US government to be called "neutral".

In the words of the New York Times, "Journalists have no place on the playing fields of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality" - https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journali...

[1] The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an American think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international relations. [..] Its membership has included senior politicians, numerous secretaries of state, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, professors, corporate directors and CEOs, and senior media figures. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations