On 09/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
That rather misses the point. What we're doing here is looking at the actual article, the actual editors of the actual article, and seeing if the proposed test yields an unambiguous answer: who are the Martin Luther Kings and who are the Jason Gastriches?
Something that may be applicable here: I've noticed (over and over again) that activist calls-to-arms on mailing lists, etc., telling people to come to Wikipedia to support a point of view, always leave a number of people who become activists for *this* project and who realise the very best thing they can do is to try to write from a neutral point of view. That is, to write good encyclopedia articles on their topic of great interest, rather than to push a point of view. They often become very annoyed by their less neutral fellows' efforts to push POV in the articles - there's little more annoying than dickish behaviour by people you actually agree with.
So, advocacy and a strong point of view is not evidence of ill will or even cluelessness. We all have strong points of view, and hopefully we are aware enough of them to deal with them properly for Wikipedia; new people are often just as aware of theirs when they see Wikipedia.
That rather misses the point. They insist that the medical establishment's failure or refusal to accept their definition is evidence of a problem. Well, no, medicine doesn't work that way - you are expected to follow the scientific method. You don't go to a Western medical doctor to be treated for evil spirits, however sincerely you believe that you are possessed by evil spirits.
Yabbut, we (and they) should be able to teach the controversy (to use a horribly misappropriated useful phrase). That's what NPOV says to do.
And in this case we have the opposite: proponents have expanded the definition to the point that common symptoms of a dozen or more common complaints are all listed as diagnostic of this supposed disorder, and people are encouraged to self-diagnose, and told that their self-diagnosis is accurate *because doctors won't diagnose this disorder*; doctors won't diagnose this, therefore those who will diagnose it (i.e. you, the patient, and we, the company that will sell you a treatment) are the only ones whoa re right.
This sounds more like an editorial problem of the sort I've seen since the day I got here.
So the best way to deal with it would be to get the advocates who nevertheless understand NPOV onside.
Balancing the true believers on either side of such issues is not an easy task, but one has to begin from a position of respect for both sides. That cannot be accomplished if one is predisposed to dismiss eccentric views.
I don't think it's a matter of dismissing them. It's a matter of identifying them as eccentric, that's the heart of this problem. How do we, as a community, diagnose the difference between Dr. King and "Dr." Gastrich when they tell us we are wrong? Or does it matter?
We have Scientologists who edit Scientology articles, including CoS staff editing from CoS computers. Their edits often don't stand, but (speaking as a vociferous critic of Scientology) I consider their doing so has *markedly* improved the neutrality and quality of articles on the subject. Even if some of them (and some of the critics) are raving nutters.
- d.