I hope I present novel solutions, not just an embarrassing and ill-considered "me, too" post 1
First, to address two points in your post:
Τhe only thing that prevents/hinders neutrality there is, that Wikipedia is writing about Wikipedia - which is very hard to to do in an unbiased way.
I disagree, in this specific context. Wikipedia is writing not about Wikipedia,
per se, but about an event which proposes to prove an assertion about a "fundamental Wikipedia principle." There are (would be?
) abundant, verifiable facts about the event, and no need to engage in discussion of the validity of the principle itself. While it would be easy to cover in a biased
way, I don't believe that precludes it being likewise easy to cover in an un
Just as a thought-experiment: you could pick any other article and donate your Million dollar to either of two opposing causes depending on the word count without ever announcing it - that wouldn't make the article biased either, now would it?
I don't believe this is a fair comparison. By donating to the causes without announcing it, I am not creating any link between the intent to donate and the content of the article. If I choose an article with two contrary points of view at random, and flip a coin to determine which is PoV is even, and which is odd, there's no causal relationship between my actions and the content of the article (and thus its neutrality,) since my actions are entirely determined in an infinitesimal instant between two states of the article, and thus are based entirely on the content of the last revision prior to the infinitesimal instant.
If I pick an article at random, then announce my intention to flip a coin in one week's time, my donation will have an effect on the content of the article, but the effect can't reasonably be considered to affect its neutrality, since there is, as above, no known link between the article's state and the direction of the donation.
It is only when I announce both my intention and
the specific payout conditions that I have a direct effect on the neutrality of the article (or, at least, its meta-neutrality.) However, as I discuss, (admittedly, pedantically,) below, there's a difference between the neutrality of "the article" and the neutrality of "coverage of the event..."
...and now, my solutions, assumptions, and a healthy dose of pedantry which should make it obvious that I've been laid off
- Assumptions about the terms of the event and the payout:
- The name of the Wikipedia article must be "About This Event," without punctuation (i.e., without the comma and quotation marks ).
- The absence of an article named "About This Event" will not trigger the payout, as the fundamental condition has not been satisfied.
- A redirection directive does not count as an article.
- The payout conditions will be tested against a snapshot of the article taken precisely one week from the end of pronunciation of the last syllable of the announcement ("[...] pro-life.")
- Assumptions about what constitutes Wikipedia coverage of the event, and the determination of the "neutrality" of that coverage:
- Coverage of the event itself need not be under the name "About This Event."
- Any coverage of the event in which BHG announces his intention to donate, and (presumably) the ensuing response and eventual donation, is about the event itself,[i] and not about the unpunctuated name [i]"About This Event." Any article named "About This Event," covering the event exclusively, thus would be inappropriately named, as the name "About This Event," refers to the article required to satisfy the payout conditions, and not the event itself.
- Any article about the article named "About This Event," would not be an article, at all, but a "Talk" or other Wikipedia meta-page, and thus would be named with the appropriate meta- prefix.
- The neutrality of the coverage of the event depends solely upon the content of articles about the event, itself,[i] and not the content of the article named [i]"About This Event." And article by that name, should it exist, would be about a topic relevant to the event, but not about the event itself.
I present below two possible solutions satisfying the presumed goal of Wikipedia covering the event neutrally, invalidating the example given in the XKCD comic titled "Neutrality Schmeutrality"
as proof of the hypothesis, "It's possible to create events which Wikipedia cannot cover neutrally."
Note that this solution does not
disprove the hypothesis itself, just the proffered proof by example.
- Redirection pages and the exploitation of pedantic definitions given in the Assumptions section of this post:
- Create an article named "Black Hat Guy," (or some name appropriate and sufficient to identify the character.
- Create a redirection page named "About This Event,"[i] which redirects to the article named previously created [i]"Black Hat Guy" article.
- Lock the "About This Event" redirection page.
- Add to the "Black Hat Guy" article content covering of the event, as such coverage is biographically relevant.
- Alternatively, or additionally, create an article named "The Black Hat Guy Wikipedia Neutrality Challenge," containing content covering the event.
- Balancing external forces to achieve neutrality of coverage2:
- Wikipedia must hold a fund-raising campaign to raise $1,000,000 (or, more generally, a matching amount.)
- Wikipedia pledges to donate, upon Black Hat Guy's payout, a matching amount to the "losing" activist group(s).
The second solution presumes that meta-neutrality (i.e., Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality,) is not itself a non-neutral position, at least within the context of this discussion. By contributing to the "losing" cause, Wikipedia is not taking a stance on the issue contested by the articles themselves. It is merely restoring balance to the predominant external force affecting the neutrality of Wikipedia's coverage of the event. Wikipedia is, quite literally, neutralizing
the effect of the event itself on their coverage of it.
I have now officially spent Way Too Much TimeTM
on this...31 It may still be an embarrassing and ill-considered "me, too" post, but it would be comforting to know it was at least also a novel solution 2 For what it's worth, I did come up with this one, independently, before I read the above post... I promise.3 ...which is why I stopped proofreading, so please excuse typos, thinkos, truncated thoughts, and repetitive use of "itself," "also," etc.