Jonathan writes:
>One such personal story: friend of mine was told by the social workers
>that if he and the wife wanted a night or a weekend off, there was a
>sort of transition house where they could leave the kids to be baby-sat
>for a while. He decided to try it out one weekend. That night the
>house called him and told him to bring his son home. It turned out that
>a 9 year old girl with Downs syndrome had sexually molested this 4 year
>old boy, and he was "acting up" as a response. But noone at the house
>would listen to the boy, nor did the social worker take any action on
>the matter.
>
>And theres plenty more where that came from. Shall I continue?
Please do. Tell us how the cops in LA and New York are generally
corrupt murdering thugs (arguably true), and so therefore every cop
everywhere is corrupt (not true).
kq
You Wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 09:59:47AM -0800, koyaanisqatsi(a)nupedia.com
wrote:
>>Please do. Tell us how the cops in LA and New York are generally
>>corrupt murdering thugs (arguably true), and so therefore every cop
>>everywhere is corrupt (not true).
>
>Now you are getting into straw man territory, because I never made any
>statements about "all" social workers or about "every" social worker.
>What are you trying to do here?
>
>Jonathan
You called them agents of an ivory tower society or some shit like
that. Without specifying number, you meant all. You know it too. ^_^
kq
> From: The Cunctator <cunctator(a)kband.com>
>
> On 12/9/02 7:05 AM, "Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote:
>
> > Clutch, notice that "It's true" is not usually a defense against a
> > charge of POV. I could write, on a page about North Korea, that it is
> > led by muderous tyrants with no right to exist, much less right to
> > nuclear weapons. Well, that's true. But it is still not NPOV.
> >
> The "murderous tyrants" bit is NPOV, but it would require some backing up.
No, Cunctator, Jimbo was absolutely right. This is important, and it's
quite simple: the fact that, surely, some North Koreans and other
communists around the world would disagree with that characterization
means that it cannot simply be asserted like that without attribution and
with a fair statement of contrary views. No amount of "backing up" would
render it **NEUTRAL**; it would merely render it well-backed-up, which is
quite a different thing from neutrality. Cunc, "neutrality" does not mean
whatever you want it to mean. In particular, it doesn't mean "true claims
backed up by evidence." It's rather more complicated than that, as the
[[neutral point of view]] article makes clear.
Now, if you disagree with this, and you want to continue unsubtly plugging
for a change of our neutrality policy, you would make your position much
more credible by actually presenting an argument that we all ought to
understand "neutral" to mean whatever you think it does mean (your views
on this are none too clear to me; as best I can make out, you think it
means "supported by evidence," which is clearly a non-starter, so I'll do
you the favor of not actually attributing that view to you).
> From: Jonathan Walther <krooger(a)debian.org>
>
> I wasn't obstructing NPOV, but I was obstructing peoples attempts to
> make sure that the POV shared by myself and countless others was
> eliminated from the article.
See [[neutral point of view]], the section headed "A consequence: writing
for the enemy." In your efforts to make an article balanced, it is
completely wrongheaded to tip the scales in the direction of your own
views and then expect others to correct the problem. That entails
creating a bias situation precisely analogous to the one you reacted to in
the first place.
Others can be expected to remove small bits of bias here and there; but
they certainly cannot be expected to spend very significant amounts of
time copyediting partisan screed.
> If warnings are in order, I think they should be directed at those who
> want to silence any view other than their own.
That was plainly not what was happening, however. Deleting a bunch of
sentences that were basically just a partisan screed, that could not
easily and straightforwardly be shaped into something fair and attributed
--and most importantly, that the author could very well have made
unbiased--is perfectly acceptable. We've been doing it for a long time.
> From: Jason Williams <jason(a)jasonandali.org.uk>
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 05:45:02AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote: > Our
> process should not be a competitive process of posting POV claims >
> and daring others to fix them.
>
> I'm not so sure this is a good general rule. Probably if used in too
> many cases or taken to extremes then it is a bad thing, but used
> sensibly it can be a good thing in my opinion.
I tend to disagree. I don't think we should encourage anyone in this
regard. Give an inch, and they'll gladly take a mile. It's just far too
convenient as an excuse: "Oh, I know there was a little bias there, but I
was trying to provoke a debate." How conveeeeenient.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> writes:
> Please try to understand the difference between objective fact and
> neutrality. For example, that North Korea, Cuba, and the Soviet Union
> were ruled by murderous tyrants is IMHO a "fact". Incredible as it may
> seem, there are some contributors who dispute this fact. So, we are
> forced by *our own policy* to step back from asserting "the truth" and
> humbly stating that "According to sources X, Y and Z these lands were
> ruled, etc."
EIian replied:
> No.
> That they have killed xy-thousand people may be a fact.
> That they have suppressed political opposition by censure etc. may be a
> fact.
> That they were "murderous tyrants" is a moral judgement.
Elian is much closer to the truth, but he still doesn't have it exactly
right. If the North Koreans officially deny having N people, then it
isn't a fact; it's an opinion, regardless of the fact that everyone *else*
in the world has that opinion. This is why we'd write, "South Korea and
Western sources claim that the Kim Jong-Il regime have killed N political
dissidents; the North Korean and Chinese government officially disagree
with it." (I'm not claiming such things have been said by these parties,
I'm just going with the example.)
The relevant section of [[Wikipedia:neutral point of view]]
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV
is headed "Alternative formulation of the policy: assert facts, including
facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves."
Moreover, it's not the fact that "murderous tyrants" is a *moral judgment*
that makes it not a fact. According to the operational definition of
"fact," if everyone is united in making a particular moral judgment
(e.g., I hope, bayonnetting innocent babies for kicks is bad), then the
contents of that judgment is a fact, and we might as well simply declare
it to be such. Of course, it's entirely possible that we couldn't ever
come up with a moral judgment that we (humans) could all agree upon.
Maybe amoralists like Ohio State professor Richard Garner are a standing
rebuke to the suggestion. But even in that case, it still wouldn't be the
fact that it's a moral judgment that makes it biased; it's the fact that
other people disagree with it that makes it biased (non-neutral).
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
Larry,
I agree with you 100% on the naming issue for the [[Ireland]] and
[[China]] articles. I'd like to provide two more examples for additional
perspective.
Korea is, and Germany was, a divided country. In common speech, that is,
when English-speaking people who are NOT writing encyclopedia articles
are just talking about life among themselves, the following is how I've
heard them use the words 'Korea' and 'Germany'. (Note that the same goes
for writing.)
"Where are you from?" "Korea." (this means 'South Korea', because as
everyone knows, North Korea's travel restrictions are so severe that it
is exceedingly rare for a North Korean to travel to the West or even
communicate with a Westerner.)
"Hey, Joe, where were you stationed in the army?" "Germany." (until
1990, this meant 'West Germany', of course).
"Where would you like to travel, Mr. Tourist?" "I was thinking of
visiting Korea." "Oh, fine, we have excursions to Seoul and Pusan." (The
travel agent doesn't have to mention that there are no flights to
Pyongyang.)
"Korea was a staunch ally of the US during the Vietnam war." (This means
'South Korea', because it's fairly well known that North Korea stayed
out of that war.)
Now we have four cases of divided lands. When speaking of the political
units, we will have to mention the status quo -- regardless of how we
individual writers FEEL ABOUT such divisions.
Ireland has a southern, independent republic; and a northern part linked
to (or dominated by) the British and thus formally part of the "United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island". But the island of Ireland
is filled with Irish people, and it has two distinct political
divisions, like it or not.
China is divided into two political units: PRC (the mainland) and ROC
(Taiwan, the "Republic of China"). Regardless of diplomatic niceties
about the so-called one-China party, there are *de facto* two distinct
political units.
Germany used to be divided into West Germany and East Germany, and so
was Berlin. There's not much controversy here.
Korea is still divided into North Korea (DPRK) and South Korea (ROK).
Please allow me to suggest one editorial policy that fits all four
cases.
* [[China]] => all of China, with links to [[PRC]] and [[ROC]]
governments
* [[Ireland]] => the entire emerald isle, with links to [[Republic of
Ireland]] and [[Northern Ireland]] governments
* [[Germany]] => the country, with links to (1) West Germany (defunct),
(2) East Germany (defunct) and (3) whatever the heck the current
government is calling itself.
* [[Korea]] => the entire peninsula, with links to [[North Korea]] and
[[South Korea]].
Most countries are not divided, so the main referent of [[this country]]
needn't be strictly distinguished from the current government. For
divided lands, however, the existence of divisions MUST NOT be hidden.
Regardless of Wikipedians' opinions or wishes for the resolution of the
various political conflicts, our job is describe what is there.
Ed Poor
Jonathan, you are right that people turn to an encyclopedia for facts.
However, when facts are in dispute, one new fact springs into being like
Venus emerging from the half-shell: to wit, that there is a dispute over
the facts! Well, duh!
That's why Jimbo and Larry created NPOV, and that's the sheer genius of
it -- which I'm sure a talented guy like you can understand and
appreciate.
Later today, I'm going to take a look at the pages in question. I hope
that by then you have gotten out of the warrior mind-set and have
accepted Jimbo's NPOV policy.
Because a "clutchless" Wikipedia won't get us to our destination any
faster then standard transmission (of facts). Get it? ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Walther [mailto:krooger@debian.org]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 9:24 AM
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Clutch is on a POV tirade
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 05:45:02AM -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>This discussion should probably proceed primarily on the Talk page for
>the article.
>
>However, it's worth noting that you wrote "Social workers are the foot
>soldiers of the ivory tower social engineers that governments and big
>businesses hire to keep the masses under control."
I have a valid and extensive historical basis for saying that, from the
history of Margaret Sanger, to the old English "work houses" and
religious charities like the Salvation Army, on to the modern behavior
of welfare workers in intruding on peoples privacy and human dignity as
a precondition to providing them with the necessities of life. I could
go on for quite a while on the topic, showing all the evidence for that
view. I see now that my view is not widely shared by the relatively
affluent contributors to the Wikipedia; and now that I think about it,
it is understandable given their lack of background.
To people with sufficient background, the above quote is not a
controversial statement. I need to make clear that I wrote what I did
in good faith. My intent wasn't to spark debate and make other people
do all the hard work by writing something egregiously POV.
>to simply delete it. The Wikipdia itself should make no controversial
>claims.
People turn to encyclopedias for facts. Once a fact is established, it
should present it, even if the Joe Sixpack may find the fact startling,
or contrary to what he expects. Naturally in such cases we should give
enough detail so a person can verify these facts for themselves.
Jonathan
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw(a)reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
On Monday 09 December 2002 08:23 am, wikien-l-request(a)wikipedia.org wrote:
> That approach does encourage laziness. But sometimes it is so
> exhausting to defend an NPOV edit against partisans that it is tempting
> to put in bias, so the opposite side will be more inclined to meet
> somewhere in the middle.
Your edits were far from NPOV and you were the one trying to insert bias so
stop crying wolf. Another example of your extreme bias;
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Fluoride&diff=468589&oldid=4675…
You replaced a mention of the most major use of fluorides with;
Fluorides are noted for their toxicity,
and have been sold in pill form as
extremely effective rodent and insect poisons.
Except for the rodent and extremely part this is true but this use is not as
widespread or as important as the removed information about use in toothpaste
and as an additive in water supplies. This gives an unbalanced representation
of the ion.
You went on;
To retain their right to practice, various
dental associations require dentists to tell
clients that fluorides are harmless and beneficial
to the teeth. Dentists who say otherwise have their
licenses revoked.
This statement, expressed as fact, gives an impression that there is a
conspiracy to poison patients and dentists who don't follow suit get there
licenses revoked. How very NPOV. I removed the above paragraph asking for
substantiation for the claim and you never offered evidence.
> Take the current article on fluorine for instance. It took no end of
> effort to get the statements about fluoride out of the fluorine article
> where they didn't belong; some folks insisted on linking fluoride with
> dental health in the fluorine article, without any of the important
> context that the fluoride article provides about the health risks of
> fluoride.
Bad example. The fluorine article is supposed to mention all uses for the
element fluorine. Since the element fluorine in all fluorides then mention of
the uses of fluorides should by all means be the fluorine article. The
sentence you started that edit war over was;
The fluorine ion [[fluoride]] is used in
dental health care products and,
controversially, as an additive to
some drinking water supplies.
Six people, including myself and Rmhermen (who has done some work with
fluoride), reinserted the above factual sentence after you kept on removing
it. I got sick of the situation so I ended the edit war by placing the above
sentence on the talk page and /temporarily/ removed it from the article.
> The policy about "not deleting any information" really needs to be
> revisited. I recommend rephrasing it as "don't delete any RELEVANT
> information". This is an encyclopedia after all. Have we lost our
> roots? Remember Denis Diderot.
>
> Jonathan
The removed information is highly relevant. Just look at all the other element
articles; almost all of them mention uses of compounds and ions of the
element (many have compound sections that introduce the compounds and link to
more extensive articles on them). Few elements have many uses in their pure
non-ionic forms. That is why this is relevant.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Karma Payment:
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palladium/Temp&diff=0&oldid=471…
I would have been able to finish this element if I wasn't involved in 3
different edit wars with Clutch on Sunday.
Larry is right, and I'm getting of tired of carrying on 4 or more threads with Clutch.
Jonathan, the NPOV is what it is. Jimbo and Larry aren't going to change it, so I suggest you stop clutching at the hope that your arguing will pan out.
Now, please. Stop trying to change an immutable policy and focus on productive work -- such as your technical suggestions about namespaces, or providing *facts* for the articles -- or I'm going to leave you in the clutches of the peremptory reverters, bwah ha ha ha ha!
Ed Poor
P.S. If you think I'm bluffing, try me. :-|
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Sanger [mailto:lsanger@nupedia.com]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 1:25 PM
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Clutch is on a POV tirade
I don't get it. Why are we discussing the actual merits of Jonathan's
views of social workers? That plainly doesn't advance the *on-topic*
discussion, which concerns the standards of neutrality, one iota. To
bring this debate to an end, why do we have to do any more than observe
that there is a difference of opinion, and perhaps (on the relevant talk
page) discuss how to make the article reflects this sensibly and
neutrally?
Larry
I don't get it. Why are we discussing the actual merits of Jonathan's
views of social workers? That plainly doesn't advance the *on-topic*
discussion, which concerns the standards of neutrality, one iota. To
bring this debate to an end, why do we have to do any more than observe
that there is a difference of opinion, and perhaps (on the relevant talk
page) discuss how to make the article reflects this sensibly and
neutrally?
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
Jonathan Walther wrote:
> I think we could do with a good definition of what "neutral" means.
> If it means not supporting one view over the other, and giving all
> views equal time, that can be a can of worms. If neutral means "not
> making moral judgements about things", thats something I think we can
> all agree on as being neutral.
The can has long since been opened, and the definition is posted and
begging to be read, at:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view
I would have thought you would have had the good sense to know this and to
have read it a few times before boldly engaging in this debate as you
have. Before you go on more about this can of worms, I'd encourage you to
read it, as well as the copious discussion of it linked at the bottom of
the page.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell