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>>