G'day geni,
On 5/14/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Hm, if that's really an opinion and not a fact, just attribute
it to the
resort, i.e. "The resort's management claims it is only
accessible by
helicopter". And really, the issue of content is different from
the topic -
how does this make it impossible to write a neutral article
about the
resort?
Because we then don't have any sources for any of the alternative opinions. Thus the article is presenting only one POV.
Now you're *really* clutching at straws. Either that, or you're taking the piss.
NPOV doesn't mean "you must find someone, anyone, who holds a differing view before you can print any statement". That's called "balance", and it's why Fox News is so wonderful.
("Most experts claim the sky is blue. However, Joe Bloggs, who lives in his parents' basement, plays Dungeons & Dragons all day, and has never seen the sun, says the sky is actually green with a nice pink polkadot effect.")
Cheers,
On 5/15/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day geni,
On 5/14/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Hm, if that's really an opinion and not a fact, just attribute
it to the
resort, i.e. "The resort's management claims it is only
accessible by
helicopter". And really, the issue of content is different from
the topic -
how does this make it impossible to write a neutral article
about the
resort?
Because we then don't have any sources for any of the alternative opinions. Thus the article is presenting only one POV.
Now you're *really* clutching at straws. Either that, or you're taking the piss.
NPOV doesn't mean "you must find someone, anyone, who holds a differing view before you can print any statement". That's called "balance", and it's why Fox News is so wonderful.
("Most experts claim the sky is blue. However, Joe Bloggs, who lives in his parents' basement, plays Dungeons & Dragons all day, and has never seen the sun, says the sky is actually green with a nice pink polkadot effect.")
Cheers,
-- [[User:MarkGallagher]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/15/07, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Now you're *really* clutching at straws. Either that, or you're taking the piss.
NPOV doesn't mean "you must find someone, anyone, who holds a differing view before >you can print any statement".
Id does however mean you must show that a citeable statement exists if a counter statement is clearly possible (otherwise you let in all the cranks who people haven't gotten around to debunking yet)
("Most experts claim the sky is blue. However, Joe Bloggs, who lives in his parents' >basement, plays Dungeons & Dragons all day, and has never seen the sun, says the sky >is actually green with a nice pink polkadot effect.")
We would be remiss in not mentioning that noted astronomer X has described it as starry and the UK meteorological office has described it as grey on a number of occasions.
On May 14, 2007, at 6:48 PM, geni wrote:
Id does however mean you must show that a citeable statement exists if a counter statement is clearly possible (otherwise you let in all the cranks who people haven't gotten around to debunking yet)
What? No. We do not have to include hypothetical objections to statements. There is, in fact, a policy about this, called "No original research." In terms of NPOV, unless someone has actually pointed out the possibility of a land expedition to the Invincible Snowfields, it's original research to dispute the claim.
Of course, that's just in the land of querrelous rules-lawyering. In the real world of writing a usable encyclopedia in a reasonably efficient manner, the discussion pretty much ends with the fact that no reasonable or sane reader would actually interpret the statement as a claim about the possibility of mounting an expedition, but that it is in fact talking only about how someone interested in skiing the slopes would get there.
-Phil
On 5/15/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
What? No. We do not have to include hypothetical objections to statements. There is, in fact, a policy about this, called "No original research." In terms of NPOV, unless someone has actually pointed out the possibility of a land expedition to the Invincible Snowfields, it's original research to dispute the claim.
Yup. Which is why it is imposible to write a NPOV article and thus the article should be deleted.
I can find sources for the monatomic gold thing but sourceing the debunking would be much harder (perhaps imposible). If it is imposible it would be imposible to write a NPOV article and thus we should not have such an article.
On May 14, 2007, at 7:38 PM, geni wrote:
On 5/15/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
What? No. We do not have to include hypothetical objections to statements. There is, in fact, a policy about this, called "No original research." In terms of NPOV, unless someone has actually pointed out the possibility of a land expedition to the Invincible Snowfields, it's original research to dispute the claim.
Yup. Which is why it is imposible to write a NPOV article and thus the article should be deleted.
No. NPOV does not take into account on any level whatsoever the issue of addressing hypothetical claims. It states, and I quote, that we must represent "all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources."
Unless the viewpoint that Invincible Snowfields might be accessible by land has actually been published somewhere, it is completely irrelevant to the project of writing an encyclopedia.
-Phil
On 5/15/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
No. NPOV does not take into account on any level whatsoever the issue of addressing hypothetical claims. It states, and I quote, that we must represent "all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources."
"without bias" by representing it as the only view you are representing it with bias. And where no other views have been published by reliable sources it is impossible to get around this without breaching NOR. Thus it is impossible to write a NPOV article where there are not a least a handful of citeable sources.
Currently [[Invincible Snowfields]] is trying to get around this by very careful wording that contains no opinion whatsoever (and gets close to succeeding) but since NPOV demands that you do include opinion this is not a valid get out either.
In short requiring articles be NPOV is a notability standard and for certain things quite a tough one.
geni wrote:
Currently [[Invincible Snowfields]] is trying to get around this by very careful wording that contains no opinion whatsoever (and gets close to succeeding) but since NPOV demands that you do include opinion this is not a valid get out either.
But you're demanding that in order to be NPOV [[Invincible Snowfields]] must include a _completely made up_ opinion that _nobody actually holds_. This is not what NPOV requires. This is madness.
In short requiring articles be NPOV is a notability standard and for certain things quite a tough one.
Verifiability might be interpreted as a notability standard, but NPOV not so much (and certainly not your strange interpretation of NPOV). If every single person in the whole wide world stood up tomorrow and shouted in unison "Invincible Snowfields in only accessible by helicopter!" The correct response is not to conclude "well, I guess it isn't notable since there are no dissenting POVs we can write about."
On 5/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Currently [[Invincible Snowfields]] is trying to get around this by very careful wording that contains no opinion whatsoever (and gets close to succeeding)
Was this a compliment?
but since NPOV demands that you do include opinion this is not a
valid get out either.
It does? What opinions are required at [[Tusk shell]] that aren't present?
Steve
On 5/15/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Currently [[Invincible Snowfields]] is trying to get around this by very careful wording that contains no opinion whatsoever (and gets close to succeeding)
Was this a compliment?
but since NPOV demands that you do include opinion this is not a
valid get out either.
It does? What opinions are required at [[Tusk shell]] that aren't present?
Haven't a clue and because it only has a single source we have no way of finding out. However other sources will exist so we have a fair chance of doing so
When we only have one source indepent of the subject there is no reason to think that the article can represent existing opinions.
On 15/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
No. NPOV does not take into account on any level whatsoever the issue of addressing hypothetical claims. It states, and I quote, that we must represent "all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources."
"without bias" by representing it as the only view you are representing it with bias. And where no other views have been published by reliable sources it is impossible to get around this without breaching NOR. Thus it is impossible to write a NPOV article where there are not a least a handful of citeable sources.
Currently [[Invincible Snowfields]] is trying to get around this by very careful wording that contains no opinion whatsoever (and gets close to succeeding) but since NPOV demands that you do include opinion this is not a valid get out either.
NPOV requires that you give *due weight* to all opinions that exist, which may include a) making them the primary theme of the article; b) having a seperate section on them; c) mentioning them briefly in passing; or d) not mentioning them at all.
(To take an example, for [[Moon]], a) would be "The Moon is Earth's only natural satellite"; b) would be the various lunar-impact creation hypotheses; c) would be those vulcanism-on-the-moon reports; and d) would be "the moon is inhabited by intelligent mice")
It does not require that we give any weight to opinions we confabulated out of whole cloth, nor that we are bound to report opinions which simply don't exist.
There are objects in this world about which there are no differences of opinion (though right now none spring to mind) - do we have to invent opposing sides duelling over the centre ground to talk about them neutrally? Of course not.