I think we all need to work on developing the ability to recognize a "bandwagon" when we see it, and take care that the contrarian point of view is appropriate expressed. For example, note that contrarian is a word used in financial circles, did we adequately treat the housing boom BEFORE the sub-prime crisis?
Fred
"Giving extra weight due to or own suspicions" is common sense, not OR in the WP meaning of it. . It will always take research in some sense to determine what sources to use and what constitutes proper weight--that is not what is meant by NOR. Research on the ground, yes that's OR in the NOR sense.
Encyclopedia editing is like journalism--it needs to be informed by the facts in the real world. it's not a mechanical process, though some of the botmasters for the bots used to make WP pages from public domain sources may think otherwise, You need to know what to look for, how to recognize it, and how to put it together. NPOV means doing this objectively, in recognition of all the particular views, and with judgment for what needs to be said about them.
On Dec 6, 2007 1:23 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I aspire to more, but did we even satisfy the requirements of NPOV?
Fred
Even if we gave little weight to such claims that isn't our fault.
Giving extra
weight due to or own suspicions or looking at the facts on the
ground would almost certainly constitute [[WP:OR|original research]]. Not our job.
Quoting Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The hard work of NPOV From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net Date: Thu, December 6, 2007 12:15 pm To: dgoodmanny@gmail.com
I was in an evil mood and confess to trolling; there are a lot of
good thoughts at http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ besides the sentence I seized on. We have published a "consensus of the most widespread error" from time to time, particularly in the run-up to the Iraq War. (I was one of the parties in error). Especially with current events, it is hard to know when you are doing that as our favored sources, in my case The New York Times, are fostering the error.
It would be interesting to go back and look at the development of
those articles and see how much "air time" we gave to the view that there were no weapons on mass destruction. Some modesty is in order. Even some intelligence services were taken in. We can aspire to do better then they, but without good sources on the ground, and willingness to use what they might tell us, which is their failing too, we cannot expect to surpass them.
Fred
perhaps we should redefine it our goal, as the nearest practical
approach to truth the wiki process can obtain, obtained at in a spirit of impartiality. That's what people reasonably expect from us, not a consensus of the most widespread error.
On Dec 6, 2007 9:17 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net
wrote:
> http://yudkowsky.net/virtues/ > > Please discuss. > > > - d.
"If you fail to achieve a correct answer, it is futile to protest
that you acted with propriety."
NPOV is a measure of propriety, not of truth.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.