At 01:57 PM 5/10/2009, Sam Korn wrote:

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

I meant that resolving the meatspace Israel-Palestine conflict is beyond the capabilities of the Committee.

Certainly. But if Wikipedia potential were realized, though being *better and more efficient* at following the core policies, it is not impossible that it would contribute to a real life resolution. Part (not all) of the RL problem is a lack of knowledge by each side of the reality of the other side and the reality of the historical situation. Knowledge helps real life.

Or else why is this whole project important? MMPORG?

...

The key to understanding this is, first of all, that NPOV isn't a thing, a fixed state, a property of text in itself, it is a balance that represents consensus.

No. NPOV is not determined by consensus. Wikipedia's content is determined by consensus with NPOV being the guiding principle. Something does not become more neutral because fifteen Wikipedia editors say it's neutral.

Sam's opinion is common, and quite incorrect. What's missed in his understanding is how NPOV is determined, both as Wikipedia policy, but in real life. We did not invent NPOV.

Sure, NPOV is a guiding principle, but how do we recognize it? If we have a POV, we may be unable to recognize this POV as not neutral. If a POV is a mere majority POV, we may easily think that it's neutral, and the only way to recognize it is not is to pay attention to those who object. We can't always do that with every POV, we'd be doing nothing but examining the foundations of our beliefs, and we do need to take time for ordinary maintenance of the project, editing articles, and even eating and working and sleeping, though those are of lesser importance, right?

Something does not become more neutral because every single person on the planet signs on. However, if everyone does, it makes it pretty likely that it's neutral, don't you think? If everyone signs on, not only to the truth of the statement, but to a conclusion that the statement is neutral, that would pretty much seal it as well as it could ever be sealed, don't you agree?

...

We can measure NPOV by the percentage of editors who agree with a text, and our goal should always be 100%.

No. The mere fact that no-one complains that their point of view is under-represented does not mean that it isn't.

Of course not. Especially if we've blocked everyone who dared. Sam isn't using what is called "charity of interpretation" in works on the philosophy of science, i.e., that claims are read sympathetically, to see what's right with them, not to imagine what is wrong and then object to the imagination. Suppose the "agreement" I posited is simply "agreement that the text is neutral and in conformance with policy." Would this change the response?

And, remember, I'm not proposing absolute truth, but only what we will sensibly rely upon as true. If nobody thinks that a text is POV, should we still treat it as such? What's the alternative?

What I'm proposing is an *objective* standard for NPOV that treats it as a goal to be approached, even if it is never reached. That is, instead of insisting that project text be neutral, which may be difficult or impossible in matters where there is any controversy, we insist that it approach neutrality as closely as possible, with "neutrality" being defined by the relative lack of objection. If we take steps to ensure that there is knowledgeable participation in this determination, we make it even more secure. We won't reach 100% in controversial matters for two reasons: the existence of unresolved but possibly legitimate controversy over the text, which may take time to complete (sometimes a lot of time), or the existence of editors who are firmly attached and unable to identify neutral text when they see it, they will not even consider it, since they may dislike obvious conclusions. (This often happens because the real dispute is elsewhere, not actually with the subject of the text itself, the text is merely a pawn in a different game.)

It is no more possible to create neutrality by public vote than it is [[wikiality|to create reality by public vote]].

Did anyone suggest voting here? Note that consensus can *seem* to be like voting, but it is fundamentally different. We can know that consensus is not reached from a single dissenting comment. And if half the registered editors of Wikipedia were to vote, setting aside the damage to the servers, we would not know that we had reached absolute consensus. (Though it would be likely, that's a big sample!)

I wasn't suggesting *at all* that neutrality was created by !voting. Rather, polling is a tool that can be used to estimate the degree of consensus, sometimes, which can save a lot of work. Suppose that we have an editor arguing some piece of text. Other editors waste a lot of time debating with this person. Then someone gets the idea to ask if *anyone* supports the editor's position, other than the editor. Nobody responds. Until someone responds, don't you think that this "vote," in which no vote was cast, would effectively resolve the issue pending? And if we did this, we would be following standard deliberative procedure: no motion is debated unless seconded. Organizations routinely dispose of unsupported motions in less time than it takes to state the motion. The chair asks, "Is there a second," looks around the room, and then says, "Motion fails for lack of a second," which is a non-prejudicial close with maximal efficiency. Proposals may be *discussed* in "committee," or other informal session, or privately, but participation in that discussion is not binding or obligatory. So if Mr. Dedicated Fringe wants to discuss a proposed edit with anyone who consents, that's fine, but the lack of negative response does not indicate a consensus for the proposal, it indicates nothing except that, perhaps, N editors, or maybe a majority of those participating, which may be biased toward the Fringe contingent, support the proposal. When the edit is actually made to the article, and another editor who did not participate reverts it, we cannot claim that the revert is "against consensus," because a simple discussion doesn't establish consensus, nor does a single poll. True consensus is shown to be absent by the single revert! But, ultimately, we'd want to see at least one other editor agree with the revert, or, indeed, we may easily consider that it's "against consensus," depending on the level of support.

Consensus is found through *negotiation*, not by !voting. Polling is merely a tool that can sometimes make negotiation more efficient. In RL organizations with control over property, majority rule allows decisions to be made, short-term, quickly and efficiently, but if any organization cares about unity (and for ultimate survival, they better), they will not be content with mere majority for any decision of weight. For this reason, Robert's Rules requires a two-thirds majority to close debate on a motion. With more sophisticated deliberative systems, it's practical to go much higher than two-thirds and, in fact, to reach a level where debate isn't truly closed until there remain less than two editors willing to debate. (But actions are based on "rough consensus," we don't have to wait for full consensus to act, we merely consider that consensus may change, and we leave open paths for that to happen without disruption.) Wikipedia is actually there, it can be done now, but because we haven't recognized all this formally, it usually isn't done. The rest of the editors could ignore a debate, and say to the two editors involved, effectively, "Let us know if you come to an agreement, meanwhile, we have Other Stuff to do."