Is Wild About Britain Impartial?

[Gaina]

I think you do a great job. This is one of my favourite message boards .

[rlchew]

Surely WAB is only biased or partial in the sense that all members care about wildlife and the environment? .... and what is wrong with that?

However, you do not have to look to far to see the huge diversity of opinion on some topics and issues to see that the claim that is being made is total nonsense. Debate is often very lively but nonetheless healthy and to the credit of this wonderful website and forum.

From what I have seen, rude or aggressive communication is very rare and when it arises it is dealt with appropriately.

Stu and others who manage it all behind the scenes .... have no doubts .... you are continuing to do an excellent job!

Richard

[Ollie]

Well I've certainly never had any experience of WAB being biased to any particular group etc. Pity some people haven't anything better to complain about.
Roger

[petermcgain]

Just want to say I agree with all the very positive comments made so far.

[LUPUS]

Why is this so vague who exactly is this site being accused of being partial to???????????????????????????

[galanthus]

What a shame that the person who's putting time and energy into complaining, hadn't put time and energy into helping with the site as others do .

I pop into the forum every day and I look upon it as a little community of diverse individuals with a common goal to admire and protect our british wildlife. As said previously, things get a little heated sometimes, but better to be passionate than apathetic. I think this site is very fab

[2dogs2000]

Originally Posted by thunder

Can't see how WAB can be accused of not being impartial. I've not seen any indication of any point of view being banned - there is a huge variety of opinions being expressed, and anyone can have their say as long as they do it without being offensive.

I think the WAB management do a grand job.

henrya

I totally agree.

I think this is an absolutely fabulous site, friendly, helpful and polite.
I don't know what I would do without it.
I am totally hooked.

[PeterJL]

I expect a site called Wild about Britain to be totally biased in favour of wild life. What I mean is that most of our contributors would (I guess) give less weight to an argument for the destruction of habitat because new industry and new jobs will benefit the community than to keep and manage our diminishing countryside for future generations.

I expect and hope that WAB is for instance totally biased in favour of maintaining biodiversity even if it costs taxpayer's money.

These are political stances as green issues are now mainstream in politics - even in the US these days.

As soon as I hear of anyone claiming or trying to maintain "objectivity", "neutrality" or "impartiality" I know someone is trying to be reasonable but failing.

There is no unbiased view, no neutrality, no impartiality - everyone on WAB has bias because on here we all have a positive view of the value of our wildlife. Not everyone thinks the way we do and that's why our wild places reduce each year and the existence of more plants and animals becomes threatened each year.

I'm totally and utterly biased. No way am I standing anywhere near the neutral's camp on environmental issues. I am politically biased too. I tend favour whichever political party will look after our environment. If I don't I believe there is a finite chance that climate change will cause mass extinction.

Best to declare one's bias really rather than pretend otherwise.

The answer to this critic's comments is simple: Yes mate we're biased, totally biased and unless you're a monster, raving, fat-cat me-first-and-jigger-the-rest-of-you thicko you should be too.

[helen253]

bravo!

[StuartDH]

Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite that simple. When you say biased in favour of wildlife do you mean:

In favour of Fox hunting as vermin control or anti-Fox hunting as it's cruel to animals. In favour of flooding areas for wetland birds or is the cost too high for existing habitats/species. For or against wind turbines as a necessary way to reduce impact on the environment or damaging to birds of prey?

The list is almost endless and I could go into hundreds of similar debates on squirrel and deer culls, housing development, water quality, farming and pesticides, the introduction of new species etc.

As a charity I hope that Wild About Britain is unbiased, but that obviously doesn't have to be the case for any of our members. Individually, we can all have our own bias, but collectively I'd be more than a bit surprised if all members united to form a bias on any topic.

As a charity, I hope that we give everyone equal opportunity to air their side of all of the debates. I do genuinely think that we're objective and neutral, so I'd be interested to hear from any side that thinks that we're failing to be reasonable.

Stuart

[colincurry]

I hope that I shall not be treading on anyone's toes here or offending anyone's sensibilities. In my previous incarnation as a wage slave, I frequently came into contact with charities of all sorts. At one time, we had to inspect the constitution of a charity to see if it had various powers in its constitution. Many of the charities were of a religious nature and, from the terms of their constitutions, were not only extremely biased, but also very restrictive as to who could belong.

I have no idea what the WAB constitution says, but I can only imagine that it displays the tolerance, understanding and good humour shown on this site.

WAB puts up with me, so it can't be all bad.

[honeybee]

I think WAB is democratic and not itself biased. An individual is not necessarily impartial but that's down to personal viewpoint and not WAB's responsibility. I know somebody can't advertise and promote certain things which could be inappropriate. I believe it's a fair website, sometimes arguments happen but that's dealt with fairly. So long as people are polite to each other we can express any view so long as it's a legal and not an extremist one. Sometimes there will be minority views, that's just life.

[Jez]

Yes WAB very biased as no one has posted anything otherwise to this thread! That doesn't mean i have a contrary opinion!

[demicav]

No problem with me. Everyone has their say and airs their views. Many, many subjects are covered and everything is given equal coverage.

[PeterJL]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite that simple. When you say biased in favour of wildlife do you mean:

In favour of Fox hunting as vermin control.....etc Stuart

I actually posted an example Stuart and this excellent site with its many forums has become what its contributors make it rather than what you might have wanted it to be. I would be amazed, even totally gobsmacked if there was more than a minority on WAB who would support the destruction of good wildlife habitat in favour of new industry creating jobs even if it was a windfarm. This destruction of habitat example is the one I gave because it's a common occurrence.

In real life many more people would support the creation of jobs and not worry at all about the effect on our countryside than on these boards and that makes WAB biased through our contributions not through your design or intent.

The problem here is the use of words: "biased" is a pejorative way of expressing the fact that we tend towards particular sympathies, particular points of view. Although there is debate within the site, it only attracts people who have an interest in wildlife in the first place so we are not in any way typical or representative of the rest of the UK.

There lies the intrinsic bias, lack of objectivity or whatever your rather silly critic wants to call it - but.... and this is the big but, since such lack of bias and objectivity doesn't exist anywhere and never can, we shouldn't actually worry about it.

[PMG]

The site of itself is not biased in any way. Folks here get to have their say if they wish to. The fact that most of us are concerned about wildlife in some way or other and strive to protect wild things, nature and the countryside puts us as contributers with a bias for wildlife. We as contributers have the right to our opinions re wind farms, Badger culls, Fox hunting, photographers chasing worn out migrants etc etc. Nothing wrong with us holding those views and or sharing/discussing it - if it was vintage cars, train spotting, football or whatever then the members would have a bias towards their particular subject and may even argue - Ford versus Austin or Bedford or whatever!! There will always be someone you see eye to eye with and also someone who you will disagree with - thats life - get on with it!

But the WAB site, Stu and the mods couldn't be a fairer bunch and I cannot see any problem with the site or the way it is run.

Pauline

[PeterJL]

Originally Posted by PMG

The site of itself is not biased in any way. Folks here get to have their say if they wish to. The fact that most of us are concerned about wildlife in some way or other and strive to protect wild things, nature and the countryside puts us as contributers with a bias for wildlife.......But the WAB site, Stu and the mods couldn't be a fairer bunch and I cannot see any problem with the site or the way it is run.

Pauline

I agree with you: the site design isn't biased but our contributions are and since this site's great feature is its discussion forums, the bias you correctly identify is what would define WAB to outsiders.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Suggesting we're biased is a pointless criticism. As you suggest - let's get on with our usual "biased" views eh?

[StuartDH]

Well, we've had the thread running for almost a week and got lots of info from many members so I guess it's time to reveal that the original complaint was that:

"the forum is only happy when the pro hunting or pro farming lobby is putting their side forward"....and..."the definition for the charity commision needs redefining to cover the proganda use for hunters and farmers."

Most members have posted that Wild About Britain is impartial and, if I've read it right, the posts that think that WAB does have a bias consider us to be opposite of the above.

As mentioned before, Wild About Britain (as a charity, not a forum) aims to be as impartial as we can possibly be. We want everyone to have a fair say as we think that this best serves the interests of education in every aspect of wildlife and the environment. I'd even go so far as to say that if anyone thinks that we do have a bias (again as a charity, not a forum) on a particular subject then we'd be interested to know where, as it could be a failing on our part to provide a well-rounded resource for education. Similarly, if any visitors feel that Wild About Britain (as a forum) is failing to promote a side of a debate, then the immediate and simple remedy is to post a forum message to promote their side.

I think it's important not to mix up the difference between Wild About Britain as a charity and Wild About Britain as a forum. We have little control over the latter, if only because we want to protect the impartiality of the former. We have many members from each side of every debate on hunting, culls, green energy, climate change, bio-diversity, farming, land development etc. The only controls we put in place are to ensure that members are not grossly offended, bombarded, intimidated, insulted etc by opposing opinions from other members...again this is to ensure that all sides have a fair say.

That said, I guess the perception of any bias of the charity or the forum probably has a lot to do with the position of the observer on their own side of the debate. If anti-hunting members think we're pro-hunting and pro-hunting members think we're anti-hunting then I guess that's the best we can hope for.

Stu

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

That said, I guess the perception of any bias from the charity or the forum probably has a lot to do with the position of the observer on their own side of the debate. If anti-hunting members think we're pro-hunting and pro-hunting members think we're anti-hunting then I guess that's the best we can hope for.

Stu

And that's absolutely how it should be IMHO.

[nightshade]

I feel that in the main we show both sides of the story fairly,there are always people whose overriding passions make them intolerant to the views of others
But then people are generally more firmly espoused to their own ideas are they not?

[diapasonbill]

Hello Stuart,

I have only just noticed this thread & I will add my support. I was rather surprised to see the 'complaint' I often browse the forum even though I don't often contribute, however, how often these days people will leave a society or organisation because one comment or view differs from thier own!

Bill

[Adam Cheeseman]

I would have thought that the number of heated, impassioned debates that run through various threads would be evidence enough that those who contribute to this website come from all colours of the wildlife spectrum.

Cheers,

Adam

[PeterJL]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

the original complaint is that:

"the forum is only happy when the pro hunting or pro farming lobby is putting their side forward"....and..."the definition for the charity commision needs redefining to cover the proganda use for hunters and farmers." Stu

This indicates a very muddled person. The Forum's happiness as Stu indicates is a function of whatever we all post not the template for the site. I'm also sure that someone posting genuine pro-hunting views would get short shrift by a majority of our posters.

What else would anyone reasonably expect from a site like this?

Would a pro-abortionist posting on the Vatican website expect to take part in a balanced and fair debate?

I hope the Charity Commissioners would file such a complaint under "fruit cake".

[honeybee]

I'd say that the site definitely does not favour hunting or farming although their are pros as there are antis and that both sides get to have their say as they should...freedom of speech.