OTOH, if it's the section further down commenced by [[en:user:Stevage]], then I take your point: ".placating potentially injured parties, even if that involves a minor violation of NPOV" is a slippery slope we should not be allowing anywhere near us.
That was it. Initiatives like this seem to think NPOV is optional rather than, say, the Number One Policy On The Site. And clearly, the creators can say "no no we mean keep within NPOV", but it's obvious that people were going to take it as an opt-out on it.
- d.
That was it. Initiatives like this seem to think NPOV is optional rather than, say, the Number One Policy On The Site. And clearly, the creators can say "no no we mean keep within NPOV", but it's obvious that people were going to take it as an opt-out on it.
Attempts at NPOV will never cause more than heated arguments at worst for any topic in WP except for one area - biographies of living people. Therefore it seems to me that the statement "we do NPOV everywhere without exception" may warrant re-examination. You could have pretty much any policy in place (even "every article must begin with the words, <subject> is a paedophile") and you wouldn't get sued, and you wouldn't cause any major harm (except possibly to students doing last minute revision for an exam on Queen Victoria) - except for biographies of living people.
What I'm getting at is that saying "NPOV works everywhere else, it must work here" is not self evident. We must be really, really sure that both the ideal of NPOV and its actual implementation in wikipedia by real-life, fallible editors, actually work for living bios, now that wikipedia is becoming big enough and famous enough to actually matter to the Seigenthalers of the world.
Steve
On 12/19/05, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
That was it. Initiatives like this seem to think NPOV is optional rather than, say, the Number One Policy On The Site. And clearly, the creators can say "no no we mean keep within NPOV", but it's obvious that people were going to take it as an opt-out on it.
Attempts at NPOV will never cause more than heated arguments at worst for any topic in WP except for one area - biographies of living people. Therefore it seems to me that the statement "we do NPOV everywhere without exception" may warrant re-examination. You could have pretty much any policy in place (even "every article must begin with the words, <subject> is a paedophile") and you wouldn't get sued, and you wouldn't cause any major harm (except possibly to students doing last minute revision for an exam on Queen Victoria) - except for biographies of living people.
What I'm getting at is that saying "NPOV works everywhere else, it must work here" is not self evident. We must be really, really sure that both the ideal of NPOV and its actual implementation in wikipedia by real-life, fallible editors, actually work for living bios, now that wikipedia is becoming big enough and famous enough to actually matter to the Seigenthalers of the world.
Steve
NPOV is hard policy.
-- geni
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Attempts at NPOV will never cause more than heated arguments at worst for any topic in WP except for one area - biographies of living people.
I don't believe this. Do you really not think that a consumer product scare might not involve WP with corporate lawyers?
Charles
Ah, good example - I tried to think of counterexamples, but didn't think of that one. Is it possible to slander a product? Hmm...perhaps also if you had a page claiming Elvis Presley to be gay or something you would have his estate on your back claiming you were depriving them of livelihood by denigrating his name. Or something.
Steve
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of charles matthews Sent: Monday, 19th December 2005 11:11 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Proposed policy on biographies: input sought
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Attempts at NPOV will never cause more than heated
arguments at worst
for any topic in WP except for one area - biographies of living people.
I don't believe this. Do you really not think that a consumer product scare might not involve WP with corporate lawyers?
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wik%3E ien-l
For instance, "[[Hubble Space Telescope]] initial fuzziness was due to contractor incompetence and corruption, and covered up by NASA officials and Congressman Diestel, who took bribes from both contractors and researchers at the University of Maryland". The creative writer can get actionable libels into any article - in fact, if we pinch down on bios and do nothing elsewhere, enterprising libellers will simply move their scene of operations.
Stan
Steve Bennett wrote:
Ah, good example - I tried to think of counterexamples, but didn't think of that one. Is it possible to slander a product? Hmm...perhaps also if you had a page claiming Elvis Presley to be gay or something you would have his estate on your back claiming you were depriving them of livelihood by denigrating his name. Or something.
Steve
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of charles matthews Sent: Monday, 19th December 2005 11:11 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Proposed policy on biographies: input sought
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Attempts at NPOV will never cause more than heated
arguments at worst
for any topic in WP except for one area - biographies of living people.
I don't believe this. Do you really not think that a consumer product scare might not involve WP with corporate lawyers?
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wik%3E ien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve Bennett wrote:
Ah, good example - I tried to think of counterexamples, but didn't think of that one. Is it possible to slander a product? Hmm...perhaps also if you had a page claiming Elvis Presley to be gay or something you would have his estate on your back claiming you were depriving them of livelihood by denigrating his name. Or something.
Pop stars are a horrible case, actually. Half our articles on pop stars *already* read like [[hagiography]].
- d.
Steve Bennett wrote:
Ah, good example - I tried to think of counterexamples, but didn't think of that one. Is it possible to slander a product?
Like a McDonald's hamburger? :-)
Hmm...perhaps also if you had a page claiming Elvis Presley to be gay or something you would have his estate on your back claiming you were depriving them of livelihood by denigrating his name. Or something.
IIRC dead people are unable to maintain an action for defamation.
Ec
NPOV is non-negotiable everywhere, of course, but relevant questions which I think this policy tries to address are related to verifiability, notability, liklihood of hatchet jobs, etc. Of course the details of the policy need to be worked on seriously and carefully, but I do think it is abundantly clear that it is a good idea if we recognize in a more formal way what we already all know: biographies of living persons, especially those who are barely notable, pose particular challenges.
What I'm getting at is that saying "NPOV works everywhere else, it must work here" is not self evident. We must be really, really sure that both the ideal of NPOV and its actual implementation in wikipedia by real-life, fallible editors, actually work for living bios, now that wikipedia is becoming big enough and famous enough to actually matter to the Seigenthalers of the world.
I agree with what I think you're saying *in substance* but I don't think it will be as persuasive to put it that way. It is not a violation of neutrality to note that there are special problems and concerns when we are talking about biographies of living persons.
Neutrality does not imply that we should try to become a permanent and extensive record of all pleasant and unpleasant facts or allegations about living persons who are not particularly notable.
--Jimbo
"Jimmy Wales" wrote
Neutrality does not imply that we should try to become a permanent and extensive record of all pleasant and unpleasant facts or allegations about living persons who are not particularly notable.
What I would like to see written into biography policy is 'understatement'. The messy divorce, for the most part and still under NPOV, can just be a divorce.
Charles
On 12/19/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That was it. Initiatives like this seem to think NPOV is optional rather than, say, the Number One Policy On The Site.
I haven't looked at the proposal for a few hours so I don't know what it currently says, but when I wrote it, I was aiming for "empathetic point of view," not sympathetic. But I take your point about NPOV, David. I tried to make it clear that NPOV applies to biographies as much as to any other type of article.
But I'd like to add that it may be misleading to say that NPOV is the number one policy on the site. And please don't everyone throw up your hands in horror. The NPOV and NOR policies work together, but if one of them has to be prioritized, I would argue that it's NOR. For example, supposing a well-known nun and aid worker dies. All she had ever done was help people in developing countries and we have countless newspaper articles about that. Let's suppose we can't find a single word of criticism about her, and let's further suppose she worked independently and not for any of the usual aid agencies that are often criticized.
Because lots of editors focus on the centrality of NPOV, they feel they have to include a criticism from somewhere, anywhere, and you end up with an article that reads like this: "Jane Doe (born 1938) was a Roman Catholic nun and aid worker, described by the New York Times as 'the embodiment of Christ on earth.' The Roman Catholic church has been heavily criticized for the willingness of its followers to interfere in the affairs of the developing world, according to Militant Magazine."
It may be a form of NPOV, but it's poor writing and a violation of NOR, because it's putting together a synthesis of published material in a novel way in order to build a case.
Based on examples like this, I argue that, although NPOV and NOR are inseparable, when push comes to shove, NOR is actually prioritized. Or perhaps more accurately, NPOV is interpreted in a way that prioritizes NOR. We publish only what other reputable/credible publications have published (NOR) and we try to reflect the same mix of positive and negative published material (NPOV), but in so doing, we must be careful to stick closely to the parameters of the subject matter (NOR) and not attempt to build a case of our own (NOR).
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Because lots of editors focus on the centrality of NPOV, they feel they have to include a criticism from somewhere, anywhere, and you end up with an article that reads like this: "Jane Doe (born 1938) was a Roman Catholic nun and aid worker, described by the New York Times as 'the embodiment of Christ on earth.' The Roman Catholic church has been heavily criticized for the willingness of its followers to interfere in the affairs of the developing world, according to Militant Magazine."
<snip>
Sarah
But if there is no published criticism of the nun, it certainly would not be POV to exclude the (obviously unsourced) criticism, no? NPOV is about representing all the different POVs about a subject without favouring any of them. If it so happens that there is only one (published) POV of a subject, then representing only that POV would be neutral, no? :-{
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
G'day John,
But if there is no published criticism of the nun, it certainly would not be POV to exclude the (obviously unsourced) criticism, no? NPOV is about representing all the different POVs about a subject without favouring any of them. If it so happens that there is only one (published) POV of a subject, then representing only that POV would be neutral, no? :-{
I disagree with your characterisation of NPOV. What you've described is not neutrality, but "journalistic balance" --- represent all points of view, no matter how batshit, equally, favouring none. Balance is the friend of liars and frauds everywhere.
We strive to be neutral, and *truthful*. That means we must give different points of view different weight. If Lyndon LaRouche says he's one of the most important politicians in the world, but everyone else thinks he's a dangerous lunatic quietly building himself a cult, we should not be giving the two opinions equal time.
<many snips />
Mark Gallagher wrote:
But if there is no published criticism of the nun, it certainly would not be POV to exclude the (obviously unsourced) criticism, no? NPOV is about representing all the different POVs about a subject without favouring any of them. If it so happens that there is only one (published) POV of a subject, then representing only that POV would be neutral, no? :-{
I disagree with your characterisation of NPOV. What you've described is not neutrality, but "journalistic balance" --- represent all points of view, no matter how batshit, equally, favouring none. Balance is the friend of liars and frauds everywhere.
But there are at least two lies to every story.
Ec
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote
It may be a form of NPOV, but it's poor writing and a violation of
NOR, because it's putting together a synthesis of published material in a novel way in order to build a case.
But NPOV is _not_ a doctrine about 'balance', which is what your example of a frantic search to find a 'critical dimension' suggests. And in any case using the 'rules' as discrete things is the explanation for novices - newbies have to be told things one at a time. WP experience tends to develop a writing style that is well within the parameters.
Charles
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Based on examples like this, I argue that, although NPOV and NOR are inseparable, when push comes to shove, NOR is actually prioritized. Or perhaps more accurately, NPOV is interpreted in a way that prioritizes NOR.
I like the second formulation. It is impossible for us to be NPOV if we are rushing willy-nilly into original research.
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
But I'd like to add that it may be misleading to say that NPOV is the number one policy on the site. And please don't everyone throw up your hands in horror. The NPOV and NOR policies work together, but if one of them has to be prioritized, I would argue that it's NOR. For example, supposing a well-known nun and aid worker dies. All she had ever done was help people in developing countries and we have countless newspaper articles about that. Let's suppose we can't find a single word of criticism about her, and let's further suppose she worked independently and not for any of the usual aid agencies that are often criticized.
Because lots of editors focus on the centrality of NPOV, they feel they have to include a criticism from somewhere, anywhere, and you end up with an article that reads like this: "Jane Doe (born 1938) was a Roman Catholic nun and aid worker, described by the New York Times as 'the embodiment of Christ on earth.' The Roman Catholic church has been heavily criticized for the willingness of its followers to interfere in the affairs of the developing world, according to Militant Magazine."
It may be a form of NPOV, but it's poor writing and a violation of NOR, because it's putting together a synthesis of published material in a novel way in order to build a case.
Based on examples like this, I argue that, although NPOV and NOR are inseparable, when push comes to shove, NOR is actually prioritized. Or perhaps more accurately, NPOV is interpreted in a way that prioritizes NOR. We publish only what other reputable/credible publications have published (NOR) and we try to reflect the same mix of positive and negative published material (NPOV), but in so doing, we must be careful to stick closely to the parameters of the subject matter (NOR) and not attempt to build a case of our own (NOR).
If I were to priorize these two policies I would come to the opposite conclusion. Trying to find material to offset what you consider to be an article that is not neutral enough may be in violation of NOR. If Sister Jane is busy humbly doing her own good works in a developing community why should we put on her back the burden of justifying the efforts of a global organization in which women have negligible policy making power? Why would we need to open up the entire debate on the significance and value of "Opus Dei"? The article is about Sister Jane, not the whole damn Catholic Church.
There is nothing in NPOV saying that you *must* find critical material. Feeling that abligation would itself be a violation of NPOV. NPOV synthesizes a position between existing POVs. At the moment that it is written every article is NPOV no matter what it says. This momentary situation will change very rapidly when the first person to see it says that it's bullshit. If every article that we find about Sister Jane is favorable then it follows that the NPOV is favorable.
Ec