"Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com schrieb:
I think that the best resolution here is to lean towards "completionism" rather than "deletionism". If an article is one-sided, then grow it. And then after it grows too big, it will often be much easier to see how to break parts off into sub-articles.
I partly agree, but for a large part also disagree.
Here's an example from the current dispute.
"Mother Theresa is just about to be elevated to Sainthood. Here's 20 paragraphs about why, her good works, why she is beloved by so many and so forth. And here's one sentence of criticism consisting mainly of a link to a separate page."
OR
"Mother Theresa is just about to be elevated to Sainthood. Here's 2 sentences saying way, followed by 20 paragraphs of criticism of her and her order."
I would say that in *either* case, the right solution is *seldom* to 'balance' the article by *removing* valid material that is otherwise NPOV. More likely, what is needed is *more material*. And then hopefully, in that process, we can find that both parties are satisfied to have some of the material moved out as necessary to auxiliary articles.
I disagree. We are to state that there is criticism, and what the criticism consists of. But there is no need to get into detail to prove those criticisms or spend two paragraphs per criticism to give examples. I don't see what the value is of spending eight paragraphs giving examples and evidence of insufficient care in Mother Theresa's homes. One paragraph specifying the criticism, and one with some examples would in my opinion be enough to give the relevant information in NPOV. Wikipedia is to state what criticism exists, and why. It's not our task to provide the necessary information for everybody to make decisions on the issue.
I think that deletionism forgets that Wiki Is Not Paper, and that completionism is likely to lead us to a better final article.
I disagree. An article that basically is arguing both sides of an issues extensively is NOT how I see the ideal, NPOV article. Rather, I would like the article to mention that there is argument, give the arguments of both sides, and then be ready with it. Wikipedia does not exist to build up an argument - also not if it is dressed up in NPOV language.
Andre Engels
From: "Andre Engels" engelsAG@t-online.de
I disagree. We are to state that there is criticism, and what the criticism consists of. But there is no need to get into detail to prove those criticisms or spend two paragraphs per criticism to give examples.
This is related to the point I was trying to make on textbook-l discussion http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2003-October/000522.html regarding the development of historiography and the varying POVs of historians that are considered valid but not conclusory by other historians of differing methodological approaches to social science research. If one is going to include all these different perspectives in a textbook that is only going to be used by one of these approaches the book will fail in its purpose of being a textbook of a particular type of history. The arguments are very similar, you cannot include every point of view, but just reference it. In an encyclopedia that is unproblematic, as I agree, you are not writing to include every point of view but reference it, an encyclopedia is not just a collection of texts, it is a synthesis of knowledge. A textbook is more of a collection of knowledge, and many knowledge theorists acknowledge that knowledge may have a point of view and still be useful.
Alex756
Andre Engels wrote:
We are to state that there is criticism, and what the criticism consists of. But there is no need to get into detail to prove those criticisms or spend two paragraphs per criticism to give examples. I don't see what the value is of spending eight paragraphs giving examples and evidence of insufficient care in Mother Theresa's homes. One paragraph specifying the criticism, and one with some examples would in my opinion be enough to give the relevant information in NPOV. Wikipedia is to state what criticism exists, and why. It's not our task to provide the necessary information for everybody to make decisions on the issue.
Why should we not give complete information? Wiki Is Not Paper, after all, and we have no particular space constraints. If the article gets too long, then we can break it down topically in some sensible fashion.
I disagree. An article that basically is arguing both sides of an issues extensively is NOT how I see the ideal, NPOV article.
Well, I do not think articles should "basically argue both sides of an issue". It should not be arguing for or against anything.
But omitting details -- why? There's plenty of room on the hard drive.
--Jimbo