On 09/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
That rather misses the point. What we're doing
here is looking at
the actual article, the actual editors of the actual article, and
seeing if the proposed test yields an unambiguous answer: who are
the Martin Luther Kings and who are the Jason Gastriches?
Something that may be applicable here: I've noticed (over and over
again) that activist calls-to-arms on mailing lists, etc., telling
people to come to Wikipedia to support a point of view, always leave a
number of people who become activists for *this* project and who
realise the very best thing they can do is to try to write from a
neutral point of view. That is, to write good encyclopedia articles on
their topic of great interest, rather than to push a point of view.
They often become very annoyed by their less neutral fellows' efforts
to push POV in the articles - there's little more annoying than
dickish behaviour by people you actually agree with.
So, advocacy and a strong point of view is not evidence of ill will or
even cluelessness. We all have strong points of view, and hopefully we
are aware enough of them to deal with them properly for Wikipedia; new
people are often just as aware of theirs when they see Wikipedia.
That rather misses the point. They insist that the
medical
establishment's failure or refusal to accept their definition is
evidence of a problem. Well, no, medicine doesn't work that way -
you are expected to follow the scientific method. You don't go to a
Western medical doctor to be treated for evil spirits, however
sincerely you believe that you are possessed by evil spirits.
Yabbut, we (and they) should be able to teach the controversy (to use
a horribly misappropriated useful phrase). That's what NPOV says to
do.
And in this case we have the opposite: proponents have
expanded the
definition to the point that common symptoms of a dozen or more
common complaints are all listed as diagnostic of this supposed
disorder, and people are encouraged to self-diagnose, and told that
their self-diagnosis is accurate *because doctors won't diagnose
this disorder*; doctors won't diagnose this, therefore those who
will diagnose it (i.e. you, the patient, and we, the company that
will sell you a treatment) are the only ones whoa re right.
This sounds more like an editorial problem of the sort I've seen since
the day I got here.
So the best way to deal with it would be to get the advocates who
nevertheless understand NPOV onside.
>Balancing the true believers on either side of
such issues is not an
>easy task, but one has to begin from a position of respect for both
>sides. That cannot be accomplished if one is predisposed to dismiss
>eccentric views.
I don't think it's a matter of dismissing
them. It's a matter of
identifying them as eccentric, that's the heart of this problem. How
do we, as a community, diagnose the difference between Dr. King and
"Dr." Gastrich when they tell us we are wrong? Or does it matter?
We have Scientologists who edit Scientology articles, including CoS
staff editing from CoS computers. Their edits often don't stand, but
(speaking as a vociferous critic of Scientology) I consider their
doing so has *markedly* improved the neutrality and quality of
articles on the subject. Even if some of them (and some of the
critics) are raving nutters.
- d.