From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Proposals for new policy/guidelines
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Jonas Rand wrote:
I believe that many of Wikipedia's current
policies are flawed, and
should
be replaced by new ones, and/or new policies should be created. The
neutral
point of view policy is especially flawed in that there is no such thing
as
completely unbiased. Everyone has a bias, and it complicates things when
people hide biases and pretend not to have them. Wikipedia should be an
open, collaborative site where everyone can voice their opinions on a
subject. This would be under a horizontal rule below the article.
You clearly don't understand NPOV. Its presence is an acknowledgement
that everyone has a bias; it's not a denial. Indeed if everyone were
capable of unbiased writing it would no longer be needed. The neutral
point of view is not accomplished by one person; rather it is a
synthesis of multiple views drawing in different directions until a
balance is reached. We have far fewer problems with people hiding their
biases than with people insisting on them.
I have heard this, and I think this interpretation of NPOV is good for a
fundamental principle. However, the interpretation that it is trying to be
without any point of view, which I have also heard, is a bad idea.
There is a lot of room for expressing opinions on the talk pages where
an opinion is recognized as such. For the most part, however, we are
not in a position to pass judgement on the validity of an opinion.
The talk page is
for opinions regarding the _article_, not the subject of
the article.
Claims in an
article should mostly be supported by sources, if they are
scientific claims. It should also be a place where people experienced
about
a subject are respected and trusted if their claims are supported by
other
scientific publications. Original research, however, should also be
allowed,
if the research is extensive and sophisticated.
Whether a claim is "scientific" is a subjective judgement. Whether a
person is sufficiently "experienced" is a subjective judgement. So too
are several of the qualifiers in your statement. Your premises only
lead to circular arguments and fallacious reasoning. Who decides
whether original research is extensive and sophisticated? If it is
truly original we necessarily only have the word of the researcher.
Allowing them would leave us with a lot of strange theories without the
capacity to perform adequate peer review ourselves.
All this is still consistent with my view that the demand for sources,
and accusations of original research are frequently taken to excess, but
that's another story. The fundamental requirements in these areas
remain sound.
Thank you for bringing attention to this, I'm sorry. I meant
research
supported by pubications by scientists who are somewhat knowledgeable about
the subject (i.e. other pubications in that field) should at least be
considered and not outlawed.
All opinions
should be allowed.
They are ... on the talk page.
Only opinions regarding the article, improvements we should make to it, et
cetera. I am not saying we should replace the talk page with a discussion
page for the subject, as the talk page does serve a useful purpose. We
should keep the talk page, and use the subject discussion page alongside it.
Jonas