[Wikipedia-l] Not a flame, but a statement for you all on NPOV and expertise

[Julie Hofmann Kemp]

Right -- 

This is somewhat in response to Eloquence's last, but I'd like to  use
it to point out something that has to do with Lir, Ark, and Helga as
well.

1)  Historians are trained to try to put aside their own personal
prejudices before writing.  We assume this when we talk about NPOV
--that writers will try to write objectively.  Historians also try to
explain things in term of the temporal context.  It's something else we
are trained to do.  What historians of the late 20th and 21st centuries
consider to be the best way to approach something is different than the
approach followed by people a hundred years ago.  Historians are
expected to be reasonably conversant in the different schools of thought
and what's acceptable.  Finally (on this point), a recent NPR interview
pointed out that History is the academic discipline that offers students
the best opportunity to learn expository, analytical writing -- and that
it is being neglected in US K-12 courses.

2) all of the stuff initially written on NPOV and similar policies
points out that not all theories are equally valid, and that those that
aren't should receive proportionately less space than the predominant
theories.  When theories are crank theories, or when they have fallen
into disrepute, we don't need to put them in -- or should mentions this.

3) Most Medievalists (and many historians focusing on later periods),
these days reject the notion of the Dark Ages (except in Greece between
about 1100 BC and 800 BC), because we now know that a lot was going on,
much of it having to do with learning.  Moreover, we can now speak of
the Northumbrian, Carolingian, Ottonian, and 12th century renaissances
-- to a certain degree, this has made the Renaissance a bit less unique.

4) Just because much of the modern world view began in the Enlightenment
doesn't mean it's the best view.

5) Not all people accept that religion is a destructive force in society

6) Erik, who comes at the world believing that religion is by nature (or
application) socially destructive, that post-Enlightenment thought is in
some way, more correct, and that the world before the Renaissance was
somehow a lesser thing to be judged  by modern standards, seems unable
to keep these views from influencing many of his contributions.  What
makes it seem more reasonable in Erik's case is that he assumes that his
views are both correct and universally accepted as sensible.  This is
about as neutral as, for example, Helga with her anachronistic
nationalist backwards projections or Ark with his dogmatic acceptance of
deMause's marginal theories.    If bans were imposed on Helga and Lir
(with his own prejudicial notions) and Ark (if he didn't just leave),
then I don't understand why we don't hold Eloquence to the same standard
-- He is equally incapable of neutrality and equally anti-social -- one
has only to read the Galileo talk to see that his inability to work with
others and his lack of respect for people who disagree with him is
clear.  

Y'all might at some point notice that you've lost most of the people who
actually are specialists in History and who actually work in that field
as a profession.  And you might ask why -- except, I think, that you
don't really care.  It's funny, when you realize just how much of the
stuff in the 'pedia falls under the stuff historians do for a living.

Pax

Jules


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20021210/616c5983/attachment.htm