Shane King wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:06:15AM -0800, Mark Richards wrote:
Hi - ok, let me give an example. Let's suppose that the religious right were able to muster a relatively small number of people to edit here on the evolution pages. Are you saying that, if there are a large number of people editing on the 'side' of that, then it should go in? If not, can you clarify what you did mean?
Well, there are a few scenarios here:
If what they're putting in is something they can demonstrate is believed by a large number of people (ie the wider community, and not just the few editing), and they write it in such as way that it doesn't violate the NPOV policy, then yes.
If they fail to write to the NPOV policy, then what they're saying should still go in, but it will need to be reworked.
If they're pushing a very minority point of view that's not widely held in the greater community, then it's probably one of the few cases where the fact that there are a large number of people on one side isn't indicative of the validity of their additions.
The reference to a tiny marginal minority only confuses the issue when it comes to creationism. Whether we agree with what they say or not we can't ignore the fact that a lot of people do believe that way.
When one harbours the conceit that one is right, as is often the case in scientism it is much more difficult to write from the NPOV. The phrasing of your comments on the matter suggests that only those with a view contrary to that of orthodox science are prone to POV writing. NPOV is far more an attitude towards one's writing than a policy. An important idea is often cheapened when it is set in policy. If an article on evolution happens to have a small section explaining how the beliefs of a creationist vary from those of an evolutionist that's fine. They don't need for an evolutionist to carry on at great length about how creationists have fallen into error. A single paragraph is often enough. At the same time there should be no need to "rework" that paragraph to the point where it no longer fairly represents what creatonists are really saying. And there is no need to elaborate at length about why creationists are wrong. Let their words speak for themselves.
My point isn't that the number of editors believing a point of view makes it valid to go in the article. My point was that if we have a large number of editors thinking something should go in the article, and only one person against it, then more often than not the majority is going to be right. It's just simple probability, if you think about it.
Was it not Mark Twain who commented about "lies, damn lies, and statistics." :-)
Ec