Talk:Airliners.net
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NPOV?
The "general criticisms" section seems very NPOV. Anybody else agree? (NOT a straw poll; comments only!) Sentinel75 02:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
There are individuals on the Airliners.net forums who always favour the aircraft manufacturer from their homeland. They will post comments to mock a foreign aircraft manufacturer, and stir up anger.
Here's a good example: The recent fire at an Airbus plant caused some injuries. A Boeing fanatic posted something along the lines of "I hope that halts their production for a while!". He was banned from the forums for two weeks, and will be allowed back when he agrees to be rational, rather than a fanboi.
There are lots of fanatics on Wikipedia who don't like critical comments about their fixation.
[edit] Edits by User:Planefan
User:Planefan has today added content to this article that I would consider original research (with some possible NPOV issues as well). It has been reverted by both User:Brandon W and myself, and to avoid crashing into the 3-Revert Rule I'm bringing the discussion here rather than reverting again. The paragraphs question are:
The screening process for photographs seems dominated by technical considerations rather than artistic ones, and so photographs are rejected for reasons such as leveling, centering, and pixelation. This generally means photographs have a tendency to all look the same and as cameras evolve, the standards for acceptance change also. This technical approach to photography tends to appeal to its overwhelmingly (mostly young) male aviation enthusiast membership.
The website's non-aviation forum has a distinctly right wing authoritarian and political bias which is evidenced by the following facts: 1., The relatively high proportion of current and retired U.S. military members on the site, 2., The moderators' very authoritarian approach to managing the forums and their reluctance to tolerate public discussion of how the site should be managed - even in the site-related forum; 3., Moderators selectively censor topics based on content all the while ignoring others with considerable scatalogical content or, for example, crude salacious references to prominent female Democrats; and 4., Moderators themselves participate in some of the heated discussions even as they ban members for criticizing moderators and censor criticisms, which places members who disagree with moderators in the unfair position of being unable to properly respond to moderator' excesses. Because of these practices, some members cynically refer to the moderators as the "Bill O'Reilly's of the Aviation world."
While I would agree that the screening process is technical issues, I think that there's a lot of drawing of conclusions in the above. I typically stay out of the political discussions on the site, but again there are conclusions being drawn and what looks like NPOV problems. -- Hawaiian717 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV and OR problems?
According to wikipedia itself there is a distinction to be made between OR and compilations. I refer to compilations of readily observable traits on the airliners.net website.
Wikipedia guidelines explicitly state what is not OR:
Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions. For example, if a published source gives the numbers of votes cast in an election by candidate, it is not original research to include percentages alongside the numbers, so long as it is a simple calculation and the vote counts all come from the same source. Deductions of this nature should not be made if they serve to advance a position, or if they are based on source material published about a topic other than the one at hand.
In my case, logical deductions are made that do not change the significance of the data, and it is possible for the non-specialist to understand the deductions, and I am not advancing a position other than the one at hand.
As for NPOV, I think the nature of the airliners.net conservative and authoritarian slant is worth noting and so I have been careful to explicitly itemize the basis of this observation through compiling readily observable traits on the website itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Planefan (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC-8)
