"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(a)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(a)fairpoint.net>et>:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The hard work of NPOV
> From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> Date: Thu, December 6, 2007 12:15 pm
> To: <dgoodmanny(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)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.