> 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