Jens Ropers wrote: I didn't say all articles, but the general slant. There are attempts to bash Bush thrown into completely unrelated articles; the "Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein" images gets shoved into any article that could possibly be related by five degrees of separation; the "anti-American sentiment" articles are mostly a laundry-list of "why the US sux"; the mother theresa article is about 50% "why mother theresa sux"; and there's a whole pile of "what would Marx say" spams in totally unrelated topics. There's also an odd strong pro-science-establishment bias, as evidence by the fact that most of our psychology articles are basically the (controversial) "party line" from American Psychiatry Association's _Diagnostic and Statistical Manual_. -Mark

Delirium- The general slant on Wikipedia is that articles are biased towards the point of view of the group that does the most work on them. In the case of religious topics, these are very frequently people who are strongly convinced of that religion's divine truth (and occasionally former members of that religion/cult). Wikipedia reflects the conclusions most educated people make at some point in their lives less than most people realize, because there aren't all that many highly educated people involved. There are attempts to bash Kerry thrown into completely unrelated articles. I see it linked from [[Donald Rumsfeld]] and [[Saddam Hussein]] (a very low-res version). Where else? Uh, yes, that's why it's an article about anti-American sentiments. It details the grievances people have about the United States. Whether that article should exist in the first place in this form is another question. Is it NPOV to devote that much space to criticism? -------------------------------------------------- The neutral point of view is primarily about the inclusion and attribution of separate points of view ("XYZ says .. But ABC responds .."). It is one of the non-negotiable Wikipedia policies -- every article has to comply with it. As such, we take all allegations of POV (the opposite of NPOV) very seriously. The question of balance is always a tricky one, and there are few specific recommendations that are generally applicable. One very common one is that if you feel a view is overrepresented, try adding more information about the opposite view. Removing or shortening a point of view is very likely to lead to heated discussions, as the other side may have invested considerable work in researching and summarizing it in the first place. There is no rule that criticism needs to have a 50/50 weight with positive claims. The absurdity of such a rule becomes apparent when you try to apply it to articles about persons who are almost universally regarded as criminals, for example. Then what should the balance be? In a biography, different people will have different opinions as to which aspect of a person's life was the most important. That does not mean that all opinions are equally valid, of course -- if one were to write a long subsection about how Mother Teresa affected a single individual's life, that might be considered balanced by the individual in question, but it would be easy to argue that this particular impact is so specific that it does not deserve much space. Even in cases like this, it is often better to split away information rather than to remove it entirely. Generally, however, it will be difficult to determine with certainty how much space particular events or opinions deserve. In the case of events, NPOV is not really very applicable -- instead, it is useful to watch out for the overall length of the article, and for keeping the level of detail fairly even, at least within a section. See also the question below on splitting up the page. In the case of opinions, it depends a lot on whose opinions they are. So whose view matters? ---------------------- This question is addressed specifically in Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. The response to it bears repeating here: Generally speaking, it is acceptable to include points of view of recognized experts on a subject. Who is or is not an expert is a matter of debate. Wikipedia tends to favor including almost all verifiable theories and opinions somewhere as long as there is some logic and reasoning behind them. Whether they may be included in the main article on a subject depends on a large number of criteria, including: * what the standing of the expert is * whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones * whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms * whether the expert's claims have been undeniably refuted (i.e. no other considers them to be true anymore) * whether the expert is part of a defined set of people whose points of view might be discussed in an entirely different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism) The last example in the list is a good one for the case at hand. Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such, the article about it grants space primarily to scientific views on evolution published in peer reviewed journals. The article about creationism is an article about a subject that matters to both religious people and scientists. It gives space to the views of creationists and, where they challenge the dominating scientific paradigm, addresses the responses by scientists. A last example might be the article about Trinity, a purely religious concept. It gives no space whatsoever to secular views. Where does Mother Teresa fall in this spectrum? Like all human beings, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was part of the physical world, the realm of scientists, researchers and analysts. Already canonized and on the way to becoming a Saint, she was clearly a religious figure to millions of persons. As such, the article should be considered "between the worlds", like creationism is. These articles are often the most controversial as religious and secular views collide directly. There is no way around including the views from the secular community. Among this community, it is of course fair to discriminate between the experts who have written about Mother Teresa. The rhetoric of Christopher Hitchens needs not be given as much space as the sources he cites, such as the Editor of The Lancet or former employees of Mother Teresa's homes. A less polemical work like Aroup Chatterjee's may be considered more credible than a pamphlet like The Missionary Position. Where are the rebuttals? ------------------------ There are very few. Within the religious community, opinions by secular authors are often not given much weight. This is also related to the fact that the secular view has been given very little exposure in the media, Hitchens' Hell's Angel being a notable exception. It appears that the Catholic Church does not care much about refuting accusations which are not widely known, perhaps an understandable position. This has the unfortunate side effect of overrepresenting the secular point of view. However, Wikipedia has no obligation to invent rebuttals, nor can we presume that they exist if the concerned institution or person does not defend itself. There are many historical controversies about persons who are long dead, such as Thomas Jefferson. We do not fail to report these controversies if they have a reasonable degree of logical consistency, plausibility and verifiability, only because no rebuttals exist. The same logic is applicable to Mother Teresa. Why not split away the controversy section? ------------------------------------------- Such a split might indeed reduce the amount of heated discussion. The same would be the case if we created a separate page Religious views about Mother Teresa. The different communities -- secular and religious -- would work on their respective pages, and not get much in each other's way. It is however highly problematic in NPOV terms to split articles according to the emotional impact of the information contained therein, or according to the communitiies which are primarily interested in that information. It reduces the likelihood even more that rebuttals to the criticisms of Mother Teresa's work will be found. It increases the likelihood that either one of the pages will read like a hagiography. And it would likely be done in such a way that the main article Mother Teresa would focus on one side of the issue and ignore the other, giving increased exposure to a single perspective or standard of reasoning. This is not so much about proselytizing or shoving secular (or religious) views down people's throats. It is about being fair to both sides of the issue. That does not mean that a split up is completely out of the question. The general rule of splitting articles is that it is acceptable to do so once the page has reached a certain size (often taken to be 32K, the limit at which some browsers have problems editing a page). However, such a split should never occur according to the emotional impact of the information or according to which community (secular, religious) is affected by it. Instead, all sections should be treated equally and content should be split to separate pages by subject. That means that a separate "Controversies" page would probably be a bad idea in any case, but Mother Teresa's life, Mother Teresa and abortion, Mother Teresa and donations, Mother Teresa's concept of care and similar split ups according to clearly defined subject lines may be acceptable once a certain size is reached. In any case, a summary -- usually taken to be a paragraph long or so -- and a link to the main article about each subject should be left in place. See country pages like Germany for an example. Should we include views of people who are not trustworthy? Is it proper to cite newspapers and TV shows as sources in an encyclopedia? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some have argued that a person like Christopher Hitchens does not deserve to have their view represented for various reasons. Generally Wikipedia does not pass judgment on the views of the experts it cites, but instead it makes use of the judgment which other people have made. So if someone is virtually universally considered untrustworthy in the secular and religious community, their views may deserve little or no exposure outside their respective articles. But take someone like Duane Gish or James Dobson as counter examples -- these are individuals disdained by the secular community but highly respected by some religious groups. Spanking being an issue relevant to both groups, someone like Dobson deserves representation in the article even though most scientists find his views utterly implausible (and as such might find him completely untrustworthy on the matter). We're not trying to write articles that are identical to what you would find in Britannica or Encarta. Wiki is not paper -- we have no size constraints. We also cover many subjects that not traditional encyclopedia would touch with a ten foot pole -- compare MKULTRA or felching. Our goal is to summarize the state of human knowledge on a subject, and to draw from all credible sources to do so. This includes websites, newspapers, magazines, TV interviews and 60 minutes style shows, books, scientific papers, and so forth. Traditional encyclopedias don't do that. They provide merely an overview of a particular subject, intended to answer some of the most basic questions, and they only accept knowledge as such if it has spent several years (or decades) aging and seeped into all the literature. They are not very concerned with representing different points of view. For example, the Britannica article on circumcision cites all of its supposed advantages as fact, while giving no space to the genital integrity argument. Traditional encyclopedias are very dogmatic and usually don't even cite their sources -- they are the sources. None of this would work for Wikipedia. We have to cite our sources because we're just regular persons writing articles in our spare time with no strictly enforced fact checking standards. We have to give space to differing points of view because collaboration would otherwise be impossible (and because it has many philosophical advantages -- we leave it to the reader to decide between different arguments). We have no space or time limits and are not limited by political concerns either. We have a detailed article about a major disaster the day it happens. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in that it gathers and summarizes human knowledge in a structured, readable form. But it is an encyclopedia built under an entirely new working model, with very broad standards of inclusion, and highly ambitious goals. Why is the level of flaming so high in these discussions? Isn't the fact that such an FAQ is needed a sign that something is very wrong? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As explained earlier, when secular and religious communities collide, things often become very unpleasant. Persecution of scientists during the Renaissance is well known, communists punished the free exercise of religion. When the two groups clash, even murder can be the result. It is remarkable that it is even possible for members of both groups to try to work together on an encyclopedia article about a person who was revered by millions, often cited in the same breath as Jesus Christ. For many people who participate in this discussion, their emotional reaction may be their initial motivation to do so, and hence they begin searching for arguments to justify that reaction. That is completely normal and entirely acceptable. However, with such a regular "violent entry" of new contributors, the same concerns are likely to be raised over and over again. This FAQ is an attempt to consolidate some common answers and as such, will hopefully contribute to a more pleasant discussion atmosphere. As there are libertarian, neoconservative or even Nazi spams. Established mainstream scientists whose views are favored by the majority are given more space than minority views. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Pseudoscience Regards, Erik

Delirium- At least Wikipedia is biased in the right direction, then. Held by whom? Since when is the general public relevant when it comes to scientific claims? By that standard, we would have to preface every article on biology with creationist claims, because they are so widely held. Overall popularity is the worst possible standard to use when it comes to NPOV. If there are distinct scientific traditions, then I agree with you that we should not favor one over the other. Generally speaking, we should favor the views of the majority of the best thinkers in a particular belief system, and present primarily the views of thinkers within the belief system relevant to an article (so we don't have to have a huge section on atheist views within [[Christianity]], nor a huge section on creationist views within [[Ephemeroptera]]). The current NPOV policy is incomplete in that it does not properly elaborate on the differences between different traditions of belief. This has led to many edit wars where belief systems intersect, with one group arguing that the other group's views don't matter. Sometimes that is correct, and the other group's views are more appropriately dealt with in a separate article. Regards, Erik

Delirium- I view philosophy as a sort of protoscience between religion and science, but that doesn't really belong on this list. This, however, does: Nobody. However, we do recognize the reality of the situation that virtually all modern universities teach evolutionary biology, not the creationist equivalent. Among trained biologists, creationism is virtually non-existent. Hence, our articles on biology adopt the dominant view of those highly educated in the field. I strongly suspect, however, that sooner or later all articles on biology will end up with a "creationist disclaimer". That would seal Wikipedia's fate as a serious encyclopedia. Now, reasonable people can differ on whether an article such as [[human]] deserves to be treated as a strictly biological topic. In general, however, the creationist claims are discussed at length in the articles on [[creationism]], and that is where they belong. That happens a lot - that's why they're distinct in the first place. Our job is to document these differences in a reasonable and consolidated manner without having them spill over into unrelated articles. Regards, Erik

On 18 Sep 2004, Erik Moeller wrote: And then, sometimes unrelated articles can become related to our surprise. What prompts me to contribute to this discussion is my recent revision of the article on [[Apelles]], an ancient Greek painter whom I doubt anyone here has heard of & even fewer care about. As I read the passage in Pliny the Elder's _Natural History_ about Apelles the first time, I could not help but feel that the anecdote where Apelles introduces himself to Protogenes was the inspiration for a scene in the 1950's movie "The Day the Earth Stood Still". (It's conceivable: a high school or college graduate in those days was expected to know more about the Greek & Roman Classics than students now. Then then is the case that good all writers tend to be omnivorous & far-ranging readers; my translation of Pliny was first published in 1952, & either the author of the original short story or someone involved in the movie could have read the same book.) That is why I added a bit of commentary, although in a negative manner. Hopefully someone with the time & interest will investigate the coincidence & determine if there is more to it than one crank's idle musings. On the other hand, while I was tempted to find a way to tie the lesson of Apelles' lost varnish recipie & the concept of free knowledge together, I decided it was not worth the effort. My intent in writing this article was to present information, not a sermon. Geoff