This concerns the exchanges between SlimVirgin and others on policing POV and the quality of sources.
It seems that most people, including Jimbo, are committed to the quasi anarchic aspect of Wikipedia in which a large community of diverse editors are always available to edit or comment on controversial articles. I share this commitment and agree that when editors come into conflict over content or sources, the first thing to do is to invite others to look and comment, and to give this process time so that as many people who might want to comment as possible, do.
But we all recognize that sometimes these informal processes are not sufficient, which is why we have mediation and arbitration mechanisms.
I think SlimVirgin is calling attention to another situation where these informal processes are not sufficient, but I don't think that our mediation or arbitration mechanisms as currently conceived are of help. I have two points I'd like to make.
If I understand her correctly, SlimVirgin is pointing out that in some cases concerning content, one must have special knowledge in order to identify and evaluate bias (or POV), and to evaluate the quality of sources. This is especially important when there is division over the repute of sources. Our "official policy" of "cite sources" explains that claims should come from reputable sources, but there is not clear standard of what a reputable source is -- nor do I think we can come up with one, clear, inclusive explanation, it varies so much from field to field. In some cases, our normal procedures work fine (I am thinking specifically of a fellow a couple of years ago who thought he had proven Einstein wrong; enough folks here know enough about physics and the world of physicists that over time it was clear that there was an informed consensus to revert what this fellow had been adding. In other cases, however, this does not happen. There may be different reasons why -- my sense is that even now there are far more people who regularly contribute to Wikipedia who know a lot about computers, than about ancient Near Eastern history. Also, I (as an outsider to this world) get the sense that there are lots of people who really are quite expert in matters concerning computers, even if they do not have PhD's in computer science and don't teach in Universities. But there may be some topics where the gulf in knowledge and understanding between experts and laypeople is immense.
My first point is that the standard (and in my opinion ideal) process for dealing with edit-conflicts is biased to work very well in some areas, and less well in others. In areas where there are very few editors knowledgeable enough to evaluate accuracy and the reputation of sources, we often end up with edit wars that go in circles for weeks if not months.
My second point is that we don't really have a good mechanism for resolving conflict in these cases. I have a high regard for our mediation and arbitration processes, but in my experience mediators and arbitrators usually focus on violation of behavioral guidelines. We do not have a comparable mechanism for dealing with violations of content guidelines. On the guidelines and policies page we do distinguish between behavioral and content guidelines, and there are a variety of policies in each category. But we have institutional recourse for one category, and not the other.
I think we should either expand the brief of the mediation and arbitration committees to enforce content guidelines or, if those committees prefer having a more limited brief, form some other clear process to resolve conflicts over content and enforce content policies.
I believe very strongly that any mechanism we come up with should be a last resort. I believe it should be employed only when it is clear that the ordinary anarchic way of dealing with such problems is not, even given considerable time, working. But I do think we need some mechanism.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
I think we should either expand the brief of the mediation and arbitration committees to enforce content guidelines or, if those committees prefer having a more limited brief, form some other clear process to resolve conflicts over content and enforce content policies.
As you pointed out, what constitutes reputable sources varies a great deal by discipline and is still very subjective. So, IMO, the ArbCom cannot directly touch content disputes until much better content guidelines and policies are developed (not to mention the fact of community support for extending that power to the ArbCom).
In my experience, those who violate NPOV and/or who push crank theories are opposed by other editors and eventually violate behavioral policies and guidelines. So this is somewhat self-correcting as-is. Of course it would be more efficient to deal with this before it becomes a behavioral issue, but doing so in a fair way is not at all easy.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Steve raises an interesting point about expertise. There is currently a journalist helping to edit the LaRouche pages, or trying to, who is an expert on the LaRouche movement. Because of his expertise, he has access to professional research archives about the movement, which needless to say the LaRouche editors are freaking out about, because finally there's someone in Wikipedia with the knowledge to nail them. They are calling this researcher a liar and a cheat; have accused him of cooking quotes; and I stand accused of knowing he has cooked them but pretending not to notice.
My fear is that, if I take this matter to the arbcom, there will be a "plague on both your houses" attitude, so that, if any action is taken against the LaRouche editors (e.g. that they be asked to stop editing those pages) similar action will be taken against the researcher, which I know the LaRouche editors will demand (and probably against me too). I worry that this attitude exists because admins and arbitrators usually don't examine quality of content when making decisions. Yet editorial content is the most important aspect of Wikipedia, if it wants to be a good encyclopedia.
I suppose what I'm arguing for is more respect for expertise, not at the cost of the open-access philosophy, which I support, but I believe that openness and respect for quality can co-exist. The process matters but it's a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Slim
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:57:02 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
I think we should either expand the brief of the mediation and arbitration committees to enforce content guidelines or, if those committees prefer having a more limited brief, form some other clear process to resolve conflicts over content and enforce content policies.
steven l. rubenstein said:
repute of sources. Our "official policy" of "cite sources" explains that claims should come from reputable sources,
You mean [[wikipedia:cite sources]] says this? Where does it say that sources should be reputable? What if I want to describe the British National Party's official policy on asylum seekers? Wouldn't the best way to do that be to cite the official policy itself? It isn't produced by a reputable organisation, but it's pretty authoritative on official published party policy. Evaluation of sources is something that can be left to the reader. NPOV means that we report facts, and facts about opinions. We do not present an evaluation, we simply take care to describe the source accurately and correctly identify the information that the source provides. So for instance an official LaRouche website is a very good source for the content of the official statements of the LaRouche people, an official government website is a good source for the content of official statements of the government, and the UN website is a good source for the official published minutes of UN meetings and the like. It's up to the reader to decide what to make of the respective organisations.
steven l. rubenstein said:
repute of sources. Our "official policy" of "cite sources" explains that claims should come from reputable sources,
Tony Sidaway replied:
You mean [[wikipedia:cite sources]] says this? Where does it say that sources should be reputable?
The policy states "More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite". Authoritative, in my view, means reputable.
JAY JG wrote:
steven l. rubenstein said:
repute of sources. Our "official policy" of "cite sources" explains that claims should come from reputable sources,
Tony Sidaway replied:
You mean [[wikipedia:cite sources]] says this? Where does it say that sources should be reputable?
The policy states "More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite". Authoritative, in my view, means reputable.
At the risk of splitting hairs, I usually interpret "authoritative" as being with respect to something, while "reputable" is less focussed. A LaRouche website can be authoritative w.r.t. official group positions, while being considered non-authoritative on every other subject, and maybe generally disreputable to boot.
References and external links should include at least brief caveats about quality of sources, just as one sees in good book bibliographies.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
steven l. rubenstein said:
repute of sources. Our "official policy" of "cite sources" explains that claims should come from reputable sources,
Tony Sidaway replied:
You mean [[wikipedia:cite sources]] says this? Where does it say that sources should be reputable?
The policy states "More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite". Authoritative, in my view, means reputable.
At the risk of splitting hairs, I usually interpret "authoritative" as being with respect to something, while "reputable" is less focussed. A LaRouche website can be authoritative w.r.t. official group positions, while being considered non-authoritative on every other subject, and maybe generally disreputable to boot.
References and external links should include at least brief caveats about quality of sources, just as one sees in good book bibliographies.
The phrase "you should actively search for" does not imply that the less autoritative ones should be excluded, only that better ones should be included. By adding a caveat to a dubious reference it forewarns the user of a possible problem. When that same reference is deleted from the article the warning goes with it, and our poor user is left to Google and flounder on his own. He will probably find the site anyway, and have to waste his own time determining that the site is pure trash.
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
The phrase "you should actively search for" does not imply that the less autoritative ones should be excluded, only that better ones should be included. By adding a caveat to a dubious reference it forewarns the user of a possible problem. When that same reference is deleted from the article the warning goes with it, and our poor user is left to Google and flounder on his own. He will probably find the site anyway, and have to waste his own time determining that the site is pure trash.
And what form should that "caveat" take? "Warning, this site is run by kooks"?
Jay.
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050121 08:46]:
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
The phrase "you should actively search for" does not imply that the less autoritative ones should be excluded, only that better ones should be included. By adding a caveat to a dubious reference it forewarns the user of a possible problem. When that same reference is deleted from the article the warning goes with it, and our poor user is left to Google and flounder on his own. He will probably find the site anyway, and have to waste his own time determining that the site is pure trash.
And what form should that "caveat" take? "Warning, this site is run by kooks"?
There should be a way to do it that the proponents would not reasonably object to. For instance, [[Rudolf Hess]] contains an external link to the [[Institute for Historical Review]] which notes that they are Holocaust revisionists, which they do claim to be. And both the majority against such revisionism and the minority for it know exactly what "Holocaust revisionism" means; and anyone who doesn't can follow the link on "revisionist".
- d.
There should be a way to do it that the proponents would not reasonably object to. For instance, [[Rudolf Hess]] contains an external link to the [[Institute for Historical Review]] which notes that they are Holocaust revisionists, which they do claim to be. And both the majority against such revisionism and the minority for it know exactly what "Holocaust revisionism" means; and anyone who doesn't can follow the link on "revisionist".
Hmm, Historical revisionist seems a bit too easy. How would you characterize that link I gave in the earlier e-mail, in way that warned people what kind of site it was, but the people running it could agree with?
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
There should be a way to do it that the proponents would not reasonably object to. For instance, [[Rudolf Hess]] contains an external link to the [[Institute for Historical Review]] which notes that they are Holocaust revisionists, which they do claim to be. And both the majority against such revisionism and the minority for it know exactly what "Holocaust revisionism" means; and anyone who doesn't can follow the link on "revisionist".
Hmm, Historical revisionist seems a bit too easy. How would you characterize that link I gave in the earlier e-mail, in way that warned people what kind of site it was, but the people running it could agree with?
"The people running this website claim to reveal the truth about everything".
Stan
Stan Shebs (shebs@apple.com) [050121 10:31]:
JAY JG wrote:
Hmm, Historical revisionist seems a bit too easy. How would you characterize that link I gave in the earlier e-mail, in way that warned people what kind of site it was, but the people running it could agree with?
"The people running this website claim to reveal the truth about everything".
*applause* *wild cheers*
- d.
Hmm, Historical revisionist seems a bit too easy. How would you characterize that link I gave in the earlier e-mail, in way that warned people what kind of site it was, but the people running it could agree with?
"The people running this website claim to reveal the truth about everything".
LOL! Good answer!
JAY JG wrote:
Hmm, Historical revisionist seems a bit too easy. How would you characterize that link I gave in the earlier e-mail, in way that warned people what kind of site it was, but the people running it could agree with?
"The people running this website claim to reveal the truth about everything".
LOL! Good answer!
Sarcasm is still POV pushing.
Ec
JAY JG wrote:
Hmm, Historical revisionist seems a bit too easy. How would you characterize that link I gave in the earlier e-mail, in way that warned people what kind of site it was, but the people running it could agree with?
"The people running this website claim to reveal the truth about everything".
LOL! Good answer!
Sarcasm is still POV pushing.
Oh, come on, that was funny!
JAY JG (jayjg@hotmail.com) [050121 10:26]:
Hmm, Historical revisionist seems a bit too easy. How would you characterize that link I gave in the earlier e-mail, in way that warned people what kind of site it was, but the people running it could agree with?
I must admit I'd probably explode on the talk page along the lines of "that reference really is complete shit" and then expand from there ;-) My past experience of this is links to Israel News Network (INN) on [[Current events]] - despite the 'l33t-sounding name, it's a small-time and very partisan news source, and in no way whatsoever comparable to CNN, BBC, NYT or whatever as a source for the ten or so most important things that happened in the world on that day. But try getting that across to its fans. (This is when I got tagged a Palestine apologist, whatever Alberuni might say about me.)
- d.
JAY JG said:
There should be a way to do it that the proponents would not reasonably object to. For instance, [[Rudolf Hess]] contains an external link to the [[Institute for Historical Review]] which notes that they are Holocaust revisionists, which they do claim to be. And both the majority against such revisionism and the minority for it know exactly what "Holocaust revisionism" means; and anyone who doesn't can follow the link on "revisionist".
Hmm, Historical revisionist seems a bit too easy. How would you characterize that link I gave in the earlier e-mail, in way that warned people what kind of site it was, but the people running it could agree with?
Describe a website run by the LaRouche organisation as "a website run by the LaRouche organisation." Describe a website receiving money from, or affiliated with, the LaRouche organisation as "a website partly funded by the LaRouche orgaanisation", "a website wholly funded by the LaRouche orgaanisation", or "a website affiliated with the LaRouche orgaanisation". Be prepared to prove your statements.
JAY JG wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
The phrase "you should actively search for" does not imply that the less autoritative ones should be excluded, only that better ones should be included. By adding a caveat to a dubious reference it forewarns the user of a possible problem. When that same reference is deleted from the article the warning goes with it, and our poor user is left to Google and flounder on his own. He will probably find the site anyway, and have to waste his own time determining that the site is pure trash.
And what form should that "caveat" take? "Warning, this site is run by kooks"?
It doesn't need to be any longer, but a little more respectful would help.
Ec
Stan Shebs wrote:
References and external links should include at least brief caveats about quality of sources, just as one sees in good book bibliographies.
Quality of source is usually (but not always) POV. We're supposed to be writing NPOV articles. A caveat such as "warning: the article relies on population projections that were proven by events to be grossly in error" is fine and NPOV. A caveat such as "the claims at this site are patently incorrect" is POV and superfluous. Otherwise rely on the general site content disclaimer and the reader's commonsense.
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050121 21:31]:
Quality of source is usually (but not always) POV. We're supposed to be writing NPOV articles. A caveat such as "warning: the article relies on population projections that were proven by events to be grossly in error" is fine and NPOV. A caveat such as "the claims at this site are patently incorrect" is POV and superfluous. Otherwise rely on the general site content disclaimer and the reader's commonsense.
Yes. I feel sufficient trepidation at separating external links into pro and con.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050121 21:31]:
Quality of source is usually (but not always) POV. We're supposed to be writing NPOV articles. A caveat such as "warning: the article relies on population projections that were proven by events to be grossly in error" is fine and NPOV. A caveat such as "the claims at this site are patently incorrect" is POV and superfluous. Otherwise rely on the general site content disclaimer and the reader's commonsense.
Yes. I feel sufficient trepidation at separating external links into pro and con.
But in the first example the words "proven" and "in error" make POV assertions. Better: "Warning: this source relies on population projections that have been severely questioned."
Ec
Ray Saintonge said:
David Gerard wrote:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050121 21:31]:
Quality of source is usually (but not always) POV. We're supposed to be writing NPOV articles. A caveat such as "warning: the article relies on population projections that were proven by events to be grossly in error" is fine and NPOV. A caveat such as "the claims at this site are patently incorrect" is POV and superfluous. Otherwise rely on the general site content disclaimer and the reader's commonsense.
Yes. I feel sufficient trepidation at separating external links into pro and con.
But in the first example the words "proven" and "in error" make POV assertions. Better: "Warning: this source relies on population projections that have been severely questioned."
No, in the original example it should be taken for granted that the population projections have been falsified. For instance, if I cited Malthus.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
David Gerard wrote:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050121 21:31]:
Quality of source is usually (but not always) POV. We're supposed to be writing NPOV articles. A caveat such as "warning: the article relies on population projections that were proven by events to be grossly in error" is fine and NPOV. A caveat such as "the claims at this site are patently incorrect" is POV and superfluous. Otherwise rely on the general site content disclaimer and the reader's commonsense.
Yes. I feel sufficient trepidation at separating external links into pro and con.
But in the first example the words "proven" and "in error" make POV assertions. Better: "Warning: this source relies on population projections that have been severely questioned."
No, in the original example it should be taken for granted that the population projections have been falsified. For instance, if I cited Malthus.
One does not build a very solid case if one starts to take things for granted. Ec
Ray Saintonge said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
[I wrote]
No, in the original example it should be taken for granted that the population projections have been falsified. For instance, if I cited Malthus.
One does not build a very solid case if one starts to take things for granted.
In that case you will find it very difficult to follow illustrative examples.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
References and external links should include at least brief caveats about quality of sources, just as one sees in good book bibliographies.
Quality of source is usually (but not always) POV. We're supposed to be writing NPOV articles. A caveat such as "warning: the article relies on population projections that were proven by events to be grossly in error" is fine and NPOV. A caveat such as "the claims at this site are patently incorrect" is POV and superfluous. [...]
Well duh. People who find themselves absolutely certain about the truth or falsity of various claims should spend a little time in classics, where it took centuries of work to clear out a millennium of transcription errors by semi-literate monks, just to recover documents where we don't know whether they were intended to be fact, fiction, or historical novel, written within a culture that disappeared before it could be described scientifically, and using languages where we have to guess at the meanings of many of the words, since the few surviving dictionaries are incomplete.
For example, every scholar of the subject agrees that the "Augustan History" is full of errors, and should not be trusted. Is that POV? Sure, but the "N" means "neutral", not "no", and it's perfectly valid to say "low-quality source" when that is the consensus of the experts. Saying that the "reader should use common sense" in such a situation is not only a complete abdication of our responsibility to uphold scholarly standards, but is an insult to the workers who've spent their lives studying the material in order to tell us which parts are the most believable.
Stan
Stan Shebs said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
For example, every scholar of the subject agrees that the "Augustan History" is full of errors, and should not be trusted. Is that POV? Sure, but the "N" means "neutral", not "no", and it's perfectly valid to say "low-quality source" when that is the consensus of the experts. Saying that the "reader should use common sense" in such a situation is not only a complete abdication of our responsibility to uphold scholarly standards, but is an insult to the workers who've spent their lives studying the material in order to tell us which parts are the most believable.
You mean you don't trust me as a reader to figure out that we don't know a whole lot about what happened a long time ago? Too bad, you do me a disservice.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Quality of source is usually (but not always) POV. We're supposed to be writing NPOV articles. A caveat such as "warning: the article relies on population projections that were proven by events to be grossly in error" is fine and NPOV.
I doubt it would be fine according to the people who happen to believe those projections are correct. You sentence seems anything but NPOV.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Quality of source is usually (but not always) POV. We're supposed to be writing NPOV articles. A caveat such as "warning: the article relies on population projections that were proven by events to be grossly in error" is fine and NPOV.
I doubt it would be fine according to the people who happen to believe those projections are correct. You sentence seems anything but NPOV.
If there still existed people who believe that the projections are correct, then this would not be an acceptable caveat. There are no established facts, only foreseeable objections to factual claims and ways of allaying those objections.
JAY JG said:
steven l. rubenstein said:
repute of sources. Our "official policy" of "cite sources" explains that claims should come from reputable sources,
Tony Sidaway replied:
You mean [[wikipedia:cite sources]] says this? Where does it say that sources should be reputable?
The policy states "More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite". Authoritative, in my view, means reputable.
Not in mine. We have have seen on this mailing numerous examples of authoritative sources that are not reputable, and you're familiar with them yourself. For instance, the Jeremiah Duggan article contains the following paragraph:
The LaRouche organization strongly denies any involvement in Duggan's death. Lyndon LaRouche himself has issued a statement saying the Duggan affair is a "hoax" constructed by supporters of the British prime minister, [[Tony Blair]], and the U.S. Vice-President, [[Dick Cheney]]. It is "such an obvious fabrication that no further comment is necessary," said LaRouche. [http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/site_packages/3125symons.html] Here a LaRouche site is quoted appropriately because it is authoritative on the official position taken by Lyndon LaRouche on the Jeremiah Duggan affair. It also happens to be quite preposterous, which in my opinion is even better.
Tony, you may be mixing up primary and secondary sources. When you use a publication from the British National Party (an anti-immigration nationalist group regarded as racist, for those not familiar with it) as a source of information about itself, you're using it as a primary source, which is fine, so long as you make clear where you're taking the information from.
But if you used a BNP pamphlet or website as a source of information on the British Labour Party, for example, you'd be using it as a secondary source. It would be hard to justify using the BNP as a secondary source for anything as they are not what most people would regard as a reputable organization. If you were to quote their views on immigration statistics, say, I would regard the BNP as not a reputable source for that, because they can't be trusted. If you were to cite their existence as an example of opposition to immigration policies in the UK, and quoted from them in that context, that would be fine.
The evaluation of what a reputable, authoritative, appropriate source is, is complex and context-dependent. We can't leave it up to the reader to make up their own minds, as you say. We're an encylopedia, and our job is to decipher, evaluate, and summarize on behalf of the reader, though we try to do that in an unbiased and fair manner. The fundamental issue in all good research at any level is to cite good sources accurately and appropriately, so that the reader can follow your argument, look at the context, and make sure you've summarized your sources' views accurately. But if you want to use any source whatsoever, and leave all evaluation of sources up to the reader, you might as well get rid of Wikipedia and let our former readers do Google searches instead.
Slim
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:54:58 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
steven l. rubenstein said:
repute of sources. Our "official policy" of "cite sources" explains that claims should come from reputable sources,
You mean [[wikipedia:cite sources]] says this? Where does it say that sources should be reputable? What if I want to describe the British National Party's official policy on asylum seekers?
But if you used a BNP pamphlet or website as a source of information on the British Labour Party, for example, you'd be using it as a secondary source.
We report facts and facts about opinions. The BNP website is a primary source for information about statements about the Labour party made by the BNP. It is not an adequate source for statements about the Labour Party. Thus: "BNP's Nottingham organiser Ray Pootly claimed that the local Labour council had been giving preferential treatment to asylum seekers seeking housing in the area." In this instance it would be good to cite an article by Ray Pootly on the BNP site. It's a factual statement about an opinion expressed by Ray Pootly, who is stated as a matter of fact to be a BNP organiser. The cite supports both facts. "Nottingham's Labour-dominated council gave precedence on the housing queue to homeless people if they were asylum seekers" is a factual statement that cannot be supported adequately by the cite. You would have to find a description produced by Nottingham council in which it described its allocation of housing to applicants (you might also want to support the statement that Nottingham Council is Labour-dominated) or else attribute the opinion to a third party (Ray Pootly or whoever).
steven l. rubenstein said:
This concerns the exchanges between SlimVirgin and others on policing POV and the quality of sources.
It seems that most people, including Jimbo, are committed to the quasi anarchic aspect of Wikipedia in which a large community of diverse editors are always available to edit or comment on controversial articles. I share this commitment and agree that when editors come into conflict over content or sources, the first thing to do is to invite others to look and comment, and to give this process time so that as many people who might want to comment as possible, do.
But we all recognize that sometimes these informal processes are not sufficient, which is why we have mediation and arbitration mechanisms.
I think SlimVirgin is calling attention to another situation where these informal processes are not sufficient, but I don't think that our mediation or arbitration mechanisms as currently conceived are of help. I have two points I'd like to make.
If I understand her correctly, SlimVirgin is pointing out that in some cases concerning content, one must have special knowledge in order to identify and evaluate bias (or POV), and to evaluate the quality of sources. This is especially important when there is division over the repute of sources. Our "official policy" of "cite sources" explains that claims should come from reputable sources, but there is not clear standard of what a reputable source is -- nor do I think we can come up with one, clear, inclusive explanation, it varies so much from field to field. In some cases, our normal procedures work fine (I am thinking specifically of a fellow a couple of years ago who thought he had proven Einstein wrong; enough folks here know enough about physics and the world of physicists that over time it was clear that there was an informed consensus to revert what this fellow had been adding. In other cases, however, this does not happen. There may be different reasons why -- my sense is that even now there are far more people who regularly contribute to Wikipedia who know a lot about computers, than about ancient Near Eastern history. Also, I (as an outsider to this world) get the sense that there are lots of people who really are quite expert in matters concerning computers, even if they do not have PhD's in computer science and don't teach in Universities. But there may be some topics where the gulf in knowledge and understanding between experts and laypeople is immense.
My first point is that the standard (and in my opinion ideal) process for dealing with edit-conflicts is biased to work very well in some areas, and less well in others. In areas where there are very few editors knowledgeable enough to evaluate accuracy and the reputation of sources, we often end up with edit wars that go in circles for weeks if not months.
My second point is that we don't really have a good mechanism for resolving conflict in these cases. I have a high regard for our mediation and arbitration processes, but in my experience mediators and arbitrators usually focus on violation of behavioral guidelines. We do not have a comparable mechanism for dealing with violations of content guidelines. On the guidelines and policies page we do distinguish between behavioral and content guidelines, and there are a variety of policies in each category. But we have institutional recourse for one category, and not the other.
I think we should either expand the brief of the mediation and arbitration committees to enforce content guidelines or, if those committees prefer having a more limited brief, form some other clear process to resolve conflicts over content and enforce content policies.
I believe very strongly that any mechanism we come up with should be a last resort. I believe it should be employed only when it is clear that the ordinary anarchic way of dealing with such problems is not, even given considerable time, working. But I do think we need some mechanism.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
steven l. rubenstein said:
Our "official policy" of "cite sources" explains that claims should come from reputable sources,
You mean [[wikipedia:cite sources]] says this? I don't think it does. Where does it say thatsources should be reputable? What if I want to describe the British National Party's official policy on asylum seekers? Wouldn't the best way to do that be to cite the official policy itself? It isn't produced by a reputable organisation, but it's pretty authoritative on official published party policy.
Evaluation of sources is something that can be left to the reader. NPOV means that we report facts, and facts about opinions. We do not present an evaluation, we simply take care to describe the source accurately and correctly identify the information that the source provides. So for instance an official LaRouche website is a very good source for the content of the official statements of the LaRouche people, an official government website is a good source for the content of official statements of the government, and the UN website is a good source for the official published minutes of UN meetings and the like. It's up to the reader to decide what to make of the respective organisations.
What if I want to describe the British National Party's official policy on asylum seekers? Wouldn't the best way to do that be to cite the official policy itself? It isn't produced by a reputable organisation, but it's pretty authoritative on official published party policy.
That's not the issue. Citing the National Party on it's own policy is perfectly reasonable. However, the real issues occur when people want to cite webpages like this http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/fake_invasion.htm on the George Bush article: to prove that George Bush "first started selling drugs to our children. The drug money was used to finance the deep underground alien bases."
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
What if I want to describe the British National Party's official policy on asylum seekers?
Wouldn't the best way
to do that be to cite the official policy itself?
It isn't produced by a
reputable organisation, but it's pretty
authoritative on official
published party policy.
That's not the issue. Citing the National Party on it's own policy is perfectly reasonable. However, the real issues occur when people want to cite webpages like this
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/fake_invasion.htm
on the George Bush article: to prove that George Bush "first started selling drugs to our children. The drug money was used to finance the deep underground alien bases."
I agree to the extent that where one cites information from say virusmyth.net one should clearly state that the website presents opinion that questions the "HIV-causes-AIDS" hypothesis. Such information is only OK if it is in context and the source clearly stated IMHO.
Robert
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
JAY JG said:
What if I want to describe the British National Party's official policy on asylum seekers? Wouldn't the best way to do that be to cite the official policy itself? It isn't produced by a reputable organisation, but it's pretty authoritative on official published party policy.
That's not the issue. Citing the National Party on it's own policy is perfectly reasonable. However, the real issues occur when people want to cite webpages like this http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/fake_invasion.htm on the George Bush article: to prove that George Bush "first started selling drugs to our children. The drug money was used to finance the deep underground alien bases."
That site is clearly not authoritative on the activities of the younger Bush. It is, however, authoritative on the expressed opinions of the anonymous kook who wrote that piece.
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
That site is clearly not authoritative on the activities of the younger Bush. It is, however, authoritative on the expressed opinions of the anonymous kook who wrote that piece.
It's clearly not authoritative on Bush to you and me. But to the person who cites this (or similar) articles, it is no doubt quite authoritative on Bush, and everything else as well. This problem doesn't go away simply because you feel comfortable making pronouncements on what a specific website is authoritative on.
Jay.
JAY JG said:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
That site is clearly not authoritative on the activities of the younger Bush. It is, however, authoritative on the expressed opinions of the anonymous kook who wrote that piece.
It's clearly not authoritative on Bush to you and me. But to the person who cites this (or similar) articles, it is no doubt quite authoritative on Bush, and everything else as well. This problem doesn't go away simply because you feel comfortable making pronouncements on what a specific website is authoritative on.
I think you're mistaking Wikipedia for a website that has unprecedented control over the ability of the reader to make a judgement. If I stated "Ruby Smith of Fatfield County Durham has written an article in which she claims that George Bush is a termite" and cited an article in which a person identifying herself as Ruby Smith living in Fatfield, County Durham and gave a means of verification, then I think most readers would accept this as good evidence that there exists a place in England called County Durham, and in that place there exists a district called Fatfield, and in that district there dwells a woman called Ruby Smith, and the words in the article represent words that she has typed into her computer. The existence of Ruby Smith and her locale can be verified independently. You can phone her up (or whatever) and arrange to meet her and discuss her weird views. So what do you get from that? That there exists a woman in Fatfield who believes that George W. Bush is a termite. And that's it. Someone who is predisposed to believe the statements of random bozoes on the net will read it one way, the rest of us will read it another way. That seems reasonable to me.
JAY JG said:
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
That site is clearly not authoritative on the activities of the younger Bush. It is, however, authoritative on the expressed opinions of the anonymous kook who wrote that piece.
It's clearly not authoritative on Bush to you and me. But to the person who cites this (or similar) articles, it is no doubt quite authoritative on Bush, and everything else as well. This problem doesn't go away simply because you feel comfortable making pronouncements on what a specific website is authoritative on.
I think you're mistaking Wikipedia for a website that has unprecedented control over the ability of the reader to make a judgement.
No, I'm "mistaking" Wikipedia for an encyclopedia which has policies about content. One of them is the NPOV policy, which states: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."
Jay.
Yet, some limited minority are definitely more equal than others and we have been unable to exclude their material or even to keep their views from dominating articles.
Fred
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:36:01 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research, sources, and verification
No, I'm "mistaking" Wikipedia for an encyclopedia which has policies about content. One of them is the NPOV policy, which states: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."
Jay.
The biggest problem I have had experience with is with Marxist-Leninists, who while comprising a tiny minority, feel their view is of sufficient significance that it cannot be seriously contradicted. Generally they have not been satisfied with inclusion of their viewpoint in articles, but go on to insist on removal of negative information, often cloaking their rational in the jargon of political science.
We have generally been successful in dealing with neonazis but have difficulty handling leftist totalitarianism.
Fred
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:13:52 -0500 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] original research, sources, and verification
Yet, some limited minoritys are definitely more equal than others and we have been unable to exclude their material or even to keep their views from dominating articles.
Fred
A fascinating, yet enigmatic, statement. Care to elaborate Fred?
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The biggest problem I have had experience with is with Marxist-Leninists, who while comprising a tiny minority, feel their view is of sufficient significance that it cannot be seriously contradicted. Generally they have not been satisfied with inclusion of their viewpoint in articles, but go on to insist on removal of negative information, often cloaking their rational in the jargon of political science.
We have generally been successful in dealing with neonazis but have difficulty handling leftist totalitarianism.
Fred
Where I edit I have a similar problem. In fact the wording could fit perfectly into my situation. I would like to add "anti-circumcision activists" as a group who are difficult to handle.
regards Robert
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250