In a message dated 10/25/2005 9:18:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ilyanep(a)gmail.com writes:
Does NPOV or NOR allow analysis at all? Not in the slightest.
While it is meant to discourage pushing a viewpoint and putting uncited
research up on Wikipedia, what would happen if someone were to analyze a
point in an article?
In some cases it would seem to be pushing a point of view (even if the
opposite POV is expressed) and sometimes would cause an edit war
In other cases it would be seen as original research (oh no! You can't say
that without citing it!)
Maybe I'm just not understanding correctly what you mean by analyzing.
On 10/25/05, Koltwills(a)aol.com <Koltwills(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 10/25/2005 5:28:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> ilyanep(a)gmail.com writes:
>
> Agreed...and it could be argued that some of our policies prohibit such an
> article from being created.
>
> ~Ilya N. (User:Ilyanep)
>
>
> *applauding Daniel Smith's analysis of the comments in the Guardian
> article"
>
> Policies such as?
>
> dcv
>
Yes, POV pushing is a concern, but I agree that reasoned, fair and balanced
analysis is important. Unfortunately, those with a more limited
interpretation of Wikipedia policy often tend to see any analysis as POV. I've
encountered this problem with "Afrocentrism" -- with, of course, the objections coming
from mostly whiners who lodge vague complaints because the article advances
information about which they've already formed opinions without, IMO, an
adequate (or erroneous) "knowledge" base. In short, some of their misconceptions
and biases are being challenged not only about certain aspects of history,
but about the fundamental nature of Afrocentrism itself.
And with "Melanin," there were those who simply flat-out objected to
substantive mention of race/color bias in the article, claiming the piece should
treat only the obvious scientific aspects of the subject matter -- sparking an
edit war. How much of that was due to stalking and whining about my
"fixation" on such issues or a desire to avoid mention of such matters altogether, or
due to people who honestly believed such a "connect the dots" treatment of
the subject inappropriate (addressing the Guardian complaint that pieces are
sometimes superficial/shallow in their treatment of subject matter) is hard to
gauge.
I could say the same thing about "Cool (African aesthetic)," because I
suspect some of the same issues are at play there. However, the piece itself is
far too sketchy at this point to be a clear example.
This is where admins come in. Some are crappy/biased themselves, but others
are fair/open-minded. I think it's important that administrators make it a
point to intervene in such disputes and uphold the validity of analyzing
facts in a straightforward, principled, adequately referenced fashion -- even
when the line of thinking/issues analyzed may be unfamiliar to them or at odds
with previously held assumptions/take them out of their intellectual comfort
zone.
Of course, the more off the beaten path certain notions/subject matter is,
the more contentious the debate tends to be, and this can be problematic when
dealing with immature contributors who are either incapable of being, or
unwilling to be, rational and analytical and simply are determined to be
obtuse/obstructionist/antagonistic. Again, that's when savvy administrators can be
helpful, reminding others that Wikipedia should be more than a glorified
message board where articles should be more than series of facts strung together
under a handful of subheads.
In "Blackface," NPOV/POV issues (and others) were less of a problem than
some anticipated -- perhaps because, while dealing with a somewhat sensitive
issue, the subject matter was not really fundamentally controversial. At any
rate, at least from my own personal vantage point, it's an instance where
analysis (connecting blackface to darky iconography and also discussing the
far-reaching cultural implications of the phenomenon) works. And I'm not tooting
my own horn here; there were lots of contributors to the piece. It's just
simply something I'm familiar with and an instance where, I think, Wikipedia's
collaborative give-and-take produced something of quality.
Didn't someone, somewhere say: "Be bold!"?
dcv