On 4/14/08, Jonas Rand <joeyyuan(a)cox.net> wrote:
Why does everyone keep mentioning
"mainstream" points of view? They should
be valued no more than others. If the mainstream points are published in the
media (notice how I didn't say the mainstream media), they should be
included and cited. If not, they should be put there with a {{fact}} tag
until someone finds a reference. The point of view should not be included
based on its popularity.
The hell it shouldn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not ground zero
for the culture wars. The point of an encyclopedia is not to be a
complete compendium of viewpoints, but to be a quick primer on a
number of subjects. That is, the goal of an encyclopedia is its
usefulness in understanding.
Selectiveness is a key part of that.
I believe as long as there are sources for opinions,
they are verifiable.
Whether they are reliable or not should not make a difference.
This is true only if one limits one's self entirely to primary sources.
No, it is not neutrality if we cater to the
"certain opinions", because the
kind of neutrality you're thinking of ("no" point of view, right)
doesn't
exist. It is also not right if we only cater to "certain opinions", either.
We should document all opinions that are published, regardless. If you want
to publish your opinion, you should be able to put an <hr> and put your own
opinion. --Jonas
Again, no, because an encyclopedia is a socially involved project, not
ground zero in the culture wars. That is to say, an encyclopedia aims
to provide a particular value for the culture in which it is
published, condensing and organizing the body of information that
culture posesses. The goal is very much one of cultural knowledge as
opposed to absolute knowledge. Which is not neutrality in an absolute
sense (which is what you're objecting to) but in a cultural sense. The
goal is not an ontologically neutral presentation of the facts, but
rather a presentation of the major viewpoints on a subject that any
informed person would recognize as a comprehensive summary of those
viewpoints.
Which is not ontological neutrality, but what we might call social neutrality.
There is no ontology to Wikipedia.
-Phil