This is a bit snide (what a shock coming from me) but it makes some good points about
relative value of material. It was in answer to a question about my editing philosophy
(no, really stop laughing, I have one).
The issue is not just NPOV, but evaluating the importance of data. That's what
editorial judgement for an encyclopdia is about: both NPOV and relative value.
= =
Maybe I am reading Wiki policies in an odd way, and I am happy for others to offer their
views, but I think there are essentially five levels.
1. The majority view of the recognized experts in a field, and reputable authors in
"mainstream" edited publications.
1. Minority views of published scholars in a field, and authors in "mainstream"
edited publications.
1. Minority views of published scholars and authors in marginal but edited publications.
1. Minority views of authors in marginal publications and websites that nonetheless
provide valuable insights or which have received public attention.
1. Idiosyncratic views that are essentialy self-published, overly conspiracist, or
lunatic.
In regular encyclopedias, the focus is on detailing the first category, with some small
mentions of the second category, and sometimes a brief discussion of publicized
controversies in any of the categories. Here on Wikipedia, there is more latitude, and
more room for detailing the lesser categories.
But I do not believe that minor theories should displace majority scholarship on main
pages. And since there are plenty of websites, I do not think that every minority view
needs to be detialed here. That's what search engines provide. The goal of a universal
online encyclopedia such as Wiki is to help readers find the most reliable majority views
on a subject, important minority views, with pointers to lesser views.
The claim that dissident scholars and authors are "censored" in the United
States is hyperbolic. Attacked, vilified, sometimes not rehired or even fired, yes; but
not censored. Take an example of the political left, with publishers such as Routledge,
The New Press, South End Press, Common Courage Press, etc, and magazines such as the
Nation, In These Times, Z Magazine, Mother Jones, etc. there are plenty of edited
published sources for dissident minority views. This is also true on the political right,
with numerous book and periodical publishers.
The problem is with Wiki editors who insist that every one of their pet theories, and the
blobs of original POV research they have stumbled across while surfing the Web, deserves
extended text entries on Wikipedia. This is a false--and frankly irritating and
disruptive--notion that demonstrates that there is an endless supply of people whose
egocentrism and sense of self importance vastly exceeds their competance and intellect.
-Cberlet
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Katefan0
Sent: Wed 1/25/2006 3:51 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blue sky thinking around "neutral point of view"
I've begun making a conscious effort to stop using "POV" and instead use
the
word bias, which is really more appropriate as a descriptor for bad behavior
vis a vis this policy.
-k
<<SNIP>>
Show replies by date