Delirium-
Jens Ropers wrote:
> Well, then I must have been dreaming when I
removed all these "what
> would Jesus say" - Christiospams from totally unrelated topics.
> And the folks insinuating that the "Vietcong", not the U.S. had used
> Napalm in Vietnam must have been entirely correct as well, I guess.
I didn't say all articles, but the general slant.
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 Bush thrown into completely unrelated articles;
There are attempts to bash Kerry 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;
I see it linked from [[Donald Rumsfeld]] and [[Saddam Hussein]] (a very
low-res version). Where else?
the
"anti-American sentiment" articles are mostly a laundry-list of "why the
US sux";
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.
the mother theresa article is about 50% "why
mother theresa
sux";
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.
and there's a whole pile of "what would Marx
say" spams in totally
unrelated topics.
As there are libertarian, neoconservative or even Nazi spams.
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_.
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