Sean Barret wrote,
Tony Sidaway stated for the record:
steven l. rubenstein said:
David, this is an issue I and others have raised repeatedly over the past years: many irresolvable disputes center on content, and Wikipedia needs a mechanism for dealing with these content-based disputes.
Why? If the disputes are irresolvable, why is it necessary to bring in a deus ex machina to declare a resolution? Isn't it just more honest to leave the irresolvable unresolved? I find this, the current way, quite satisfactory and if the arbcom really is accepting cases that are in the realm of content disputes then they should simply be more parsimonious in the kind of dispute they accept.
No dispute is irresolvable once you get past that archaic idea of NPOV and accept OTPOV -- the One True Point of View.
Sean misinterprets my position, and Tony either misunderstands it, or just doesn't agree with me. I do not believe that disputes over content are irresolvable, but I do think that there are POV warriors who insist on including content even if it comes from narrow and perhaps even disreputable sources, and deleting content that is the product of good research. In many of these cases (which, I still remind you, is only a small percentage of all content-related disputes), debates on talk pages can go on for weeks and weeks. Are these "irresolvable?" No. But a committee could review what the different sources are and how they are being presented (e.g. as mainstream authorities, as authorities taking a minority position, as popular opinion, as representing a fringe organization) and resolve the dispute by ruling on which sources are inappropriate, and by giving clear guidance on how the remaining diverse views can be represented in an NPOV way. Is this effort an unnecessary waste of time? No. Debates such as the ones I am talking about that go on for weeks, even months, waste good editors' time, during which we have a second-rate article.
I just do not understand this mental block so many people have. They have no problem with a mechanism that promotes more respectful relations within a more harmonious community, yet have a problem with a mechanism that would promote a better encyclopedia. This is odd because the "better encyclopedia" is what this project is all about.
Sean seems to think that all content disputes can me handled through our NPOV position, and insinuates that my (and Jguk's and Mav's) desire to have a mechanism to resolve content disputes will impose one point of view. This is nonsense for two reasons. First, I have stated explicitly that NPOV is one of the content-related policies such a committee should enforce. Second, read the NPOV policy carefully. Id does not state that "anything goes." NPOV does not require that our article on the moon state, "According to some, the moon is made of green cheese, although virtually all astronomers disagree." Don't laugh -- silly statements like this are easy to spot when we are talking about physical phenomena. But they are much harder to spot when talking about historical and cultural phenomena, which is one reason why some content disputes are protracted and cannot be resolved by mediation alone.
Steve
PS what is with this "states for the record" crap? Do conversations on the list-serve have any authority over policy (that is, are these formal or informal conversations)? Certainly, we keep a record of list-serve messages, but we are not writing for that record, we are writing for one another. And why are some quotes introduced by "X wrote" and others, "Y stated for the record?" Are Y's comments more official than X's? What is the point?
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
steven l. rubenstein said:
I do not believe that disputes over content are irresolvable, but I do think that there are POV warriors who insist on including content even if it comes from narrow and perhaps even disreputable sources, and deleting content that is the product of good research.
Arbcom can and does rule in such cases. In the Robert the Bruce case, for instance, arbcom affirmed the principle that "Removal of references from articles is generally inappropriate" by 8-0 and "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view" by 9-0.
These were also reaffirmed in the case of Robert Blair, who was involved in the same dispute on the other side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_the_B...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_Blair
Sometimes we do, but sometimes we lose our nerve. Most of the arbitration committee are elected. Insisting on inclusion of unpopular points of view is not conducive to maintaining popularity. Announcing a high-minded principle is one thing, living by it - another.
Fred
On Jun 6, 2005, at 6:08 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
steven l. rubenstein said:
I do not believe that disputes over content are irresolvable, but I do think that there are POV warriors who insist on including content even if it comes from narrow and perhaps even disreputable sources, and deleting content that is the product of good research.
Arbcom can and does rule in such cases. In the Robert the Bruce case, for instance, arbcom affirmed the principle that "Removal of references from articles is generally inappropriate" by 8-0 and "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view" by 9-0.
These were also reaffirmed in the case of Robert Blair, who was involved in the same dispute on the other side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Robert_the_Bruce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Robert_Blair
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder said:
Sometimes we do, but sometimes we lose our nerve. Most of the arbitration committee are elected. Insisting on inclusion of unpopular points of view is not conducive to maintaining popularity. Announcing a high-minded principle is one thing, living by it - another.
Well it isn't as if you were being paid, or anything. :)
Seriously, I don't know why anyone serving on arbcom would be interested in serving more than a single term. It must be exhausting.
On 6/6/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Seriously, I don't know why anyone serving on arbcom would be interested in serving more than a single term. It must be exhausting.
Trust me, re-election is the last thing on my mind. It's just always been understood both among the arbitration committee and the community that the arbitration committee does not dictate content, because a) understanding the area involved to the necessary level is out of our league, b) concerns over ending up with OTPOV, as discussed elsewhere here, and c) a general unwillingness to spread past what we were set up to deal with - the worst users who were causing serious problems in the community. Fred has consistently tried to change this, but he's generally been opposed by the remainder of the committee, except for in one or two referencing-related cases.
-- ambi
Fred Bauder a écrit:
Sometimes we do, but sometimes we lose our nerve. Most of the arbitration committee are elected. Insisting on inclusion of unpopular points of view is not conducive to maintaining popularity. Announcing a high-minded principle is one thing, living by it - another.
Fred
<small>so true...</small>
steven l. rubenstein was annoyed to be reminded that he had stated for the record:
NPOV does not require that our article on the moon state, "According to some, the moon is made of green cheese, although virtually all astronomers disagree." Don't laugh -- silly statements like this are easy to spot when we are talking about physical phenomena. But they are much harder to spot when talking about historical and cultural phenomena, which is one reason why some content disputes are protracted and cannot be resolved by mediation alone.
Silly statements that are so very hard to spot that they cannot be rebutted and can only be corrected by rendering them unexpressible are not silly. They may be wrong, but they are not speedy-obliteration candidates.
I am very worried that we are seriously discussing the formation of a committee empowered to prohibit unpopular content from Wikipedia and to ban those that feel that it is important to record it.
I think we are thinking about creating a committee to consider whether there is published authority for information, popular or unpopular. Beyond that it might consider the reputation and credibility of the source, but first it must pass the threshold of whether it exists at all. There is also the question of whether it is reasonably convenient to access it. For example, a NYT's article might cost 2 bucks but something that requires accessing Nexus or consulting an obscure journal is much more expensive.
Fred
On Jun 6, 2005, at 8:25 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
I am very worried that we are seriously discussing the formation of a committee empowered to prohibit unpopular content from Wikipedia and to ban those that feel that it is important to record it
Fred Bauder said:
I think we are thinking about creating a committee to consider whether there is published authority for information, popular or unpopular. Beyond that it might consider the reputation and credibility of the source, but first it must pass the threshold of whether it exists at all. There is also the question of whether it is reasonably convenient to access it. For example, a NYT's article might cost 2 bucks but something that requires accessing Nexus or consulting an obscure journal is much more expensive.
Well the latter problem can usually be solved by someone with a library subscription. I'm loath to sanction anyone to rate the credibility of sources; rather we should continue to treat all sources with great circumspection.
Folk with eccentric points of view such as splinter political parties often maintain websites and sometimes even publish books.
Fred
On Jun 6, 2005, at 10:00 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Fred Bauder said:
I think we are thinking about creating a committee to consider whether there is published authority for information, popular or unpopular. Beyond that it might consider the reputation and credibility of the source, but first it must pass the threshold of whether it exists at all. There is also the question of whether it is reasonably convenient to access it. For example, a NYT's article might cost 2 bucks but something that requires accessing Nexus or consulting an obscure journal is much more expensive.
Well the latter problem can usually be solved by someone with a library subscription. I'm loath to sanction anyone to rate the credibility of sources; rather we should continue to treat all sources with great circumspection.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/6/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Folk with eccentric points of view such as splinter political parties often maintain websites and sometimes even publish books.
But when there is a source for some fringe idea at least we can attach the source, so people can judge the quality of that source themselves, rather then leave it 'some people'.
Attaching sources doesn't require that we judge the sources, but our lack of judgement doesn't prohibit our readers from judging the source.
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com
Folk with eccentric points of view such as splinter political parties often maintain websites and sometimes even publish books.
But when there is a source for some fringe idea at least we can attach the source, so people can judge the quality of that source themselves, rather then leave it 'some people'.
Attaching sources doesn't require that we judge the sources, but our lack of judgement doesn't prohibit our readers from judging the source.
There is a source for every idea you can imagine, and many you can't imagine. Just because you can source an idea doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. Policy is clear on this; extreme fringe views can find some other venue for promoting their bizarre notions. The goal is that Wikipedia become an encyclopedia, not a collection of the POVs of everyone who ever managed to put up a webpage or self-publish a book.
Jay.
On 6/6/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Folk with eccentric points of view such as splinter political parties often maintain websites and sometimes even publish books.
But when there is a source for some fringe idea at least we can attach the source, so people can judge the quality of that source themselves, rather then leave it 'some people'.
Attaching sources doesn't require that we judge the sources, but our lack of judgement doesn't prohibit our readers from judging the source.
There is a source for every idea you can imagine, and many you can't imagine. Just because you can source an idea doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. Policy is clear on this; extreme fringe views can find some other venue for promoting their bizarre notions. The goal is that Wikipedia become an encyclopedia, not a collection of the POVs of everyone who ever managed to put up a webpage or self-publish a book.
I think we're talking past each other here. Nowhere did I suggest that we need to include every idea, just that there is nothing about the fact that you can cite crazy people that lessens the advantages of citing sources.
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com
On 6/6/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Folk with eccentric points of view such as splinter political
parties
often maintain websites and sometimes even publish books.
But when there is a source for some fringe idea at least we can attach the source, so people can judge the quality of that source themselves, rather then leave it 'some people'.
Attaching sources doesn't require that we judge the sources, but our lack of judgement doesn't prohibit our readers from judging the source.
There is a source for every idea you can imagine, and many you can't imagine. Just because you can source an idea doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. Policy is clear on this; extreme fringe views can find
some
other venue for promoting their bizarre notions. The goal is that
Wikipedia
become an encyclopedia, not a collection of the POVs of everyone who
ever
managed to put up a webpage or self-publish a book.
I think we're talking past each other here. Nowhere did I suggest that we need to include every idea, just that there is nothing about the fact that you can cite crazy people that lessens the advantages of citing sources.
You said "Attaching sources doesn't require that we judge the sources, but our lack of judgement doesn't prohibit our readers from judging the source." In fact, it's our responsibility to judge sources all the time, and (despite continued claims to the contrary) it's often a very tricky to do, which is why content dispute resolution of some sort or another would be quite helpful.
Jay.
Fred Bauder said:
Folk with eccentric points of view such as splinter political parties often maintain websites and sometimes even publish books.
Then those websites and books are pretty good references for their opinions. I don't see a problem here. A flat earth society website is an excellent reference for a description of the views of that society.
But if the article is [[astrophysics]]?
Fred
On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:54 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Fred Bauder said:
Folk with eccentric points of view such as splinter political parties often maintain websites and sometimes even publish books.
Then those websites and books are pretty good references for their opinions. I don't see a problem here. A flat earth society website is an excellent reference for a description of the views of that society.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com
Fred Bauder said:
Folk with eccentric points of view such as splinter political parties often maintain websites and sometimes even publish books.
Then those websites and books are pretty good references for their opinions. I don't see a problem here. A flat earth society website is an excellent reference for a description of the views of that society.
The lunatic fringe are typically easy enough to deal with; it's the more subtle cases that are harder to judge. Why not bring up real-life, happening-today cases? For example, this sourced statement [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&diff=14817484&...], which was reverted from an article on the grounds that the author didn't have a Wikipedia article on him, one article editor had never heard of him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABanu_Qurayza&diff=14816...], and another simply didn't feel he was "notable" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banu_Qurayza&diff=next&am...] Now, Tony, how do you deal with this? Is this published author notable enough to be quoted in the article?
Jay.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Fred Bauder said:
Folk with eccentric points of view such as splinter political parties often maintain websites and sometimes even publish books.
Then those websites and books are pretty good references for their opinions. I don't see a problem here. A flat earth society website is an excellent reference for a description of the views of that society.
Strawman argument. No one is suggesting that we can't refer to such source _for a description of their views_.
What we must say, if we are to be serious at all, is that the views of the flat earth society are totally inappropriate for a serious article on serious scientific views of the world.
This case is easy, but other cases are not so easy.
It will be quite useful for us to have some mechanisms to fairly and seriously assess such matters.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Fred Bauder said:
Folk with eccentric points of view such as splinter political parties often maintain websites and sometimes even publish books.
Then those websites and books are pretty good references for their opinions. I don't see a problem here. A flat earth society website is an excellent reference for a description of the views of that society.
Strawman argument. No one is suggesting that we can't refer to such source _for a description of their views_.
Then I must have misunderatood the argument entirely. That is all they could possibly be useful for.>
What we must say, if we are to be serious at all, is that the views of the flat earth society are totally inappropriate for a serious article on serious scientific views of the world.
Absolutely. This shouldn't need to be stated. No one source can dictate the nature of reality.
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
There is also the question of whether it is reasonably convenient to access it. For example, a NYT's article might cost 2 bucks but something that requires accessing Nexus or consulting an obscure journal is much more expensive.
So material from an "obscure" journal is less acceptable? I guess my digging into old Soviet naval records for information about their nuclear submarines is a waste of time.
The harder the original editor worked, the more likely his work will be deleted. That's ... I'm groping for the word ... smart? ... no ... oh, I have it: perverse.
On 6/6/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
There is also the question of whether it is reasonably convenient to access it. For example, a NYT's article might cost 2 bucks but something that requires accessing Nexus or consulting an obscure journal is much more expensive.
So material from an "obscure" journal is less acceptable? I guess my digging into old Soviet naval records for information about their nuclear submarines is a waste of time.
The harder the original editor worked, the more likely his work will be deleted. That's ... I'm groping for the word ... smart? ... no ... oh, I have it: perverse.
I agree, that is a foolish metric.
Now, if we have two equal sources (that is, roughly equal reliability and authority) for the same information we should choose the one which is more widely available (and of course, cost is a factor there).
This is like the pruning I do on external links... sometimes I find places where someone has taken free content (Linux documentation project materials, for example), and place it on their blog or a site laden with advertising then linked it from Wikipedia. When I encounter those I change the link to point to the more authoritative source.
This should not dissuade us from using a very expensive, very rare source, or even an advertising laden websource, if that is what is available for the information. That someone can verify its authenticity and authortativeness is the bar we impose.
That said, it would be a shame if we wrote articles with only very expensive sources, but I don't think we are running any risk of that. :)
Aside from the question of whether you are doing original research (which, by the way, I heartily approve of and support a change in policy to accept) , a good effort to identify your source is still necessary. This is a grey area. If I go to the Saguache County Courthouse and look up documents on say the [[Baca Grant No. 4]] that would seem to be both a well documented source (book and page) and publicly available but also difficult and expensive to access and original research to boot. So pretty ambiguous in terms of our policies.
Fred
On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:30 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
There is also the question of whether it is reasonably convenient to access it. For example, a NYT's article might cost 2 bucks but something that requires accessing Nexus or consulting an obscure journal is much more expensive.
So material from an "obscure" journal is less acceptable? I guess my digging into old Soviet naval records for information about their nuclear submarines is a waste of time.
The harder the original editor worked, the more likely his work will be deleted. That's ... I'm groping for the word ... smart? ... no ... oh, I have it: perverse.
-- Sean Barrett | If you insist upon discussing my fiasco, I sean@epoptic.com | shall forthwith go home. --Nadreck of Palain _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/6/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Aside from the question of whether you are doing original research (which, by the way, I heartily approve of and support a change in policy to accept) , a good effort to identify your source is still necessary. This is a grey area. If I go to the Saguache County Courthouse and look up documents on say the [[Baca Grant No. 4]] that would seem to be both a well documented source (book and page) and publicly available but also difficult and expensive to access and original research to boot. So pretty ambiguous in terms of our policies.
A open invitation to original research would be a bad thing... but at the same time the prohibition against it denies the ability to print common sense to those in a field... Despite the handwaving claims to the contrary, it can be quite difficult (measured against the value of including the text) to find a citation for something that is common sense in a given field but not necessarily outside it. Fortunately, at least on en, we look the other way on original research unless there is a dispute.
We need to start thinking about ways to include original research in a way which maximises the gains and minimizes the harms, and what sorts of research could be most easily included.
I've been thinking about one such way which might be useful: Form a new project called Wikiviews. Wikiviews is a collaborative framework for conducting and collecting interviews with notable people. The wikiviews community would establish notability criteria to decide who is eligible for an interview for example, having an article on wikipedia about them would be a great start, but it would also be useful to interview notable professionals and hobbyists in their areas of interest. Collaborative consensus building can be used to create proposed questions. The interview is then performed and stored, and can then be used for citations in Wikipedia articles. This would give us greater ability to insert informed opinion into an article without running into many of the problems with original research since we could attach a source to those views.
Sean Barrett wrote:
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
There is also the question of whether it is reasonably convenient to access it. For example, a NYT's article might cost 2 bucks but something that requires accessing Nexus or consulting an obscure journal is much more expensive.
So material from an "obscure" journal is less acceptable? I guess my digging into old Soviet naval records for information about their nuclear submarines is a waste of time.
The harder the original editor worked, the more likely his work will be deleted. That's ... I'm groping for the word ... smart? ... no ... oh, I have it: perverse.
Iif you use the old Soviet records somebody is bound to bring up the "No original research" rule.
Ec
Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
Iif you use the old Soviet records somebody is bound to bring up the "No original research" rule.
Why are old Soviet records "original research" while old US records (NVR, DANFS, &c.) are okay?
Sean Barrett wrote:
Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
If you use the old Soviet records somebody is bound to bring up the "No original research" rule.
Why are old Soviet records "original research" while old US records (NVR, DANFS, &c.) are okay?
I'm not saying that they are, just that somebody is bound to try to make that point.
Ec
On 6/6/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Why are old Soviet records "original research" while old US records (NVR, DANFS, &c.) are okay?
I'm not saying that they are, just that somebody is bound to try to make that point.
It disturbs me that "No original research", originally intended to prevent crackpot theories with no following being pushed on Wikipedia, is starting to mutate into something quite different.
"Cite your sources" is fine. "Provide your sources," though, is not. On many obscure topics, the sources WILL be difficult to locate. Any attempt to turn this requirement into having to provide sources that can be requested from the average library or online will remove a large number of very credible but obscure sources - specialist publications, limited circulation journals, and many other documents.
-Matt (User:Morven)
From: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com
?
On 6/6/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Why are old Soviet records "original research" while old US records (NVR, DANFS, &c.) are okay?
I'm not saying that they are, just that somebody is bound to try to make that point.
It disturbs me that "No original research", originally intended to prevent crackpot theories with no following being pushed on Wikipedia, is starting to mutate into something quite different.
It hasn't started to mutate into anything different, though some people pretend it has. What typically happens is this: An editor sees a cited POV they strongly disagree with in some article, so they construct a novel argument to counter that POV, often even citing sources for the various facts used to construct the argument. When challenged on the grounds that they are doing Original Research, they either counter by saying each of the facts used to create the argument is properly cited, or (if they've been around Wikipedia for a while) they grumble on Wikien-l that the arguments is obvious, and that the NOR policy is being stretched to cover areas for which it was never intended. When it is pointed out that obvious arguments will be cited *somewhere*, the response is that some things are so obvious (e.g. "like the fact that the sun rises in the east") that it would actually be hard to find someone specifically stating them! Then e-mails fly back and forth on the list, eventually everything dies down for two months, rinse and repeat.
Jay.
On 6/6/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
it was never intended. When it is pointed out that obvious arguments will be cited *somewhere*, the response is that some things are so obvious (e.g. "like the fact that the sun rises in the east") that it would actually be hard to find someone specifically stating them!
Hm. I'm the only person in recent memory who has made such a claim, so should I be offended that you appear to be binning me in with crackpot theorists?
For the record, I've never been a party to a content dispute on wikipedia.
I've discussed NOR because I believe it's a fundamentally weak idea at its core but it functions as a bandaid to solve many problems *now*... but long term we need process in place to accept and reject new research in a way which keeps out most of the crackpots (or at least mitigates their harm) and doesn't break NPOV.
Already wikipedia has become a better (more complete, more neutral, more verified and reviewed) corpus than some of the sources we cite, simply because our process are our contributors pretty good for some things... or alternatively, because other places are so bad. :) In any case we're weaving an odd world where wikipedia will become a default source of reliable general material... but to insert something new you must first publish it someplace less reliable.
... The point is that in the process of reinventing the encyclopedia we are also reinventing peer review. The logical conclusion is that while the encyclopedia should not be a repository for original research (because it's an encyclopedia), we will ultimately end up building such a repository because our process is superior and because we will eventually need it as a reference once we've put everyone else out of business. ;) Which is why I proposed wikiviews as a first cautious step in that direction.
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com
On 6/6/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
it was never intended. When it is pointed out that obvious arguments
will be
cited *somewhere*, the response is that some things are so obvious (e.g. "like the fact that the sun rises in the east") that it would actually
be
hard to find someone specifically stating them!
Hm. I'm the only person in recent memory who has made such a claim, so should I be offended that you appear to be binning me in with crackpot theorists?
Nothing personal; you're just the latest in a long line. And the people who insist their original research isn't original aren't always crackpot theorists; more often they're fairly normal people who have some strongly held beliefs.
For the record, I've never been a party to a content dispute on wikipedia.
For the record, I can't make the same claim; not by a long shot. :-)
I've discussed NOR because I believe it's a fundamentally weak idea at its core but it functions as a bandaid to solve many problems *now*... but long term we need process in place to accept and reject new research in a way which keeps out most of the crackpots (or at least mitigates their harm) and doesn't break NPOV.
I think the exact opposite; that it's a brilliant policy, especially when combined with other policies, particularly NPOV. While it was intended to deal with crackpots, what it is also good at (when used properly) is from stopping highly charged articles from descending into warring opinionfests.
Already wikipedia has become a better (more complete, more neutral, more verified and reviewed) corpus than some of the sources we cite, simply because our process are our contributors pretty good for some things... or alternatively, because other places are so bad. :) In any case we're weaving an odd world where wikipedia will become a default source of reliable general material... but to insert something new you must first publish it someplace less reliable.
I haven't seen evidence that Wikipedia is more reliable than the sources it cite; the contributer process is highly variable, and I've seen some rather absurd claims successfully defended in articles by large groups of people.
... The point is that in the process of reinventing the encyclopedia we are also reinventing peer review. The logical conclusion is that while the encyclopedia should not be a repository for original research (because it's an encyclopedia), we will ultimately end up building such a repository because our process is superior and because we will eventually need it as a reference once we've put everyone else out of business. ;) Which is why I proposed wikiviews as a first cautious step in that direction.
There already is a huge repository for original research that is easily and readily available. It's called the Internet, and 90% of the original research you find on there is utter crap. I'm not sure why you'd want to transfer that crap into a Wiki that has to be paid for in some way.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
From: Matt Brown morven@gmail.com
?
On 6/6/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sean Barrett wrote:
Why are old Soviet records "original research" while old US records (NVR, DANFS, &c.) are okay?
I'm not saying that they are, just that somebody is bound to try to
make
that point.
It disturbs me that "No original research", originally intended to prevent crackpot theories with no following being pushed on Wikipedia, is starting to mutate into something quite different.
It hasn't started to mutate into anything different, though some people pretend it has. What typically happens is this: An editor sees a cited POV they strongly disagree with in some article, so they construct a novel argument to counter that POV, often even citing sources for the various facts used to construct the argument. When challenged on the grounds that they are doing Original Research, they either counter by saying each of the facts used to create the argument is properly cited, or (if they've been around Wikipedia for a while) they grumble on Wikien-l that the arguments is obvious, and that the NOR policy is being stretched to cover areas for which it was never intended. When it is pointed out that obvious arguments will be cited *somewhere*, the response is that some things are so obvious (e.g. "like the fact that the sun rises in the east") that it would actually be hard to find someone specifically stating them! Then e-mails fly back and forth on the list, eventually everything dies down for two months, rinse and repeat.
This argument sounds like its original research. :-)
Ec
Matt Brown wrote:
"Cite your sources" is fine. "Provide your sources," though, is not. On many obscure topics, the sources WILL be difficult to locate. Any attempt to turn this requirement into having to provide sources that can be requested from the average library or online will remove a large number of very credible but obscure sources - specialist publications, limited circulation journals, and many other documents.
IMO, those would only be legitimate sources to cite if the subject itself is obscure and known only to specialists. If it's a well-known subject, it would make more sense to use mainstream sources on the subject. If the obscure source is indeed important, it will at least have been cited by someone else. If, for example, you find an obscure source on the Holocaust that is not cited in any mainstream work on the Holocaust, it would be original research to begin to build an argument based on it. (If you thought mainstream Holocaust historians were ignoring some obscure but credible and important source, that would be an issue to take up with them; we're just here to report the consensus in the field, not to create it.)
-Mark
On 6/7/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
IMO, those would only be legitimate sources to cite if the subject itself is obscure and known only to specialists. If it's a well-known subject, it would make more sense to use mainstream sources on the subject. If the obscure source is indeed important, it will at least have been cited by someone else.
Agreed. It's simply that some subjects are obscure enough (or at least, the scholarly analysis of them is obscure enough) that the sources would not necessarily be available through most libraries, for instance.
To pick an example of personal interest, the publications of most railroad historical societies will not be in many libraries' collections. The research and scholarship involved can be first-rate, however, and quite appropriate to cite in a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, any other specialist in the field should be able to check those references without too much difficulty, even if the material is not that easily available to the general public.
However, the true point of contention in this, I think, will be how citable primary sources should be, and to what degree going to primary sources is original research. Published primary sources are probably fairly uncontroversial, but what about unpublished primary sources? E.g., to pick a topic of personal interest again, is citing documents that can be found in the California Railroad Museum's collection of Southern Pacific Railroad original documents acceptable, or is going through such a collection original research? The references are available to anyone who cares to go there, but they are not published.
-Matt (User:Morven)
This question is presently unresolved. Interpreted literally our Original Research Policy would exclude such material, but I am gathering from conversations on this list that there is some feeling that the Original Research Policy should not apply to material of this nature. Perhaps this needs to be made clear at [[Wikipedia:No original research]]*
Fred
On Jun 7, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Matt Brown wrote:
However, the true point of contention in this, I think, will be how citable primary sources should be, and to what degree going to primary sources is original research. Published primary sources are probably fairly uncontroversial, but what about unpublished primary sources? E.g., to pick a topic of personal interest again, is citing documents that can be found in the California Railroad Museum's collection of Southern Pacific Railroad original documents acceptable, or is going through such a collection original research? The references are available to anyone who cares to go there, but they are not published.
Of course, reporting consensus really relies on the ability to gauge consensus, which is pretty difficult in and of itself.
Perhaps one way to avert the "sources" problem is to have a few people who are willing to look up specific sources. I'm not talking about the "fact-checking" project -- I don't have time to go over an entire article, even one on a topic I know fairly well, to check each date, fact, etc. against a source. But if someone said to me, "A user is citing X fact as being from Y book, maybe on page Z, could you check this out for me?" I'd be happy to do it over the course of a few days as my time permitted.
Now this would require two things -- first, people will almost universal access to anything in mainstream print. There are a few of us around -- I have access through my overly-wealthy university to just about anything which was ever in print and then some more. Some things, such as back issues of the New York TImes, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, I can access electronically almost instantly. I can also do quick searches of dozens of scholarly journals through JSTOR. I'd be happy to use these resource to benefit Wikipedia, and have already done this with a few users (people who wanted specific newspaper articles or obituaries of relatively obscure scientists, etc.). I imagine there are many others out there with similar resources at their disposal through their vocation.
The next thing needed with such people would be "trust" -- if "I" say that the fact was confirmed or not, can you trust that 1. I even bothered to look it up and 2. that I am telling the truth? Hopefully such things would be easy to red flag or double-check if there was any real dispute.
The hope, of course, is that just about anything which would feature on Wikipedia would be based heavily on secondary sources (i.e. no original research) and anything not available at a major university would not likely be mainstream enough for real inclusion. Were there an organized team of people willing to double-check difficult SPECIFIC facts (again, I'm not going to spend hours on a single article) or to even skim literature/journals/reviews for ideas of consensus in a field (which is that hard to do even if one is not an expert in the field), it might relieve some of this "content" anxiety that people seem to be having.
There might, of course, already be something like this, but I haven't seen it or mention of anything analogous.
FF
On 6/7/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
"Cite your sources" is fine. "Provide your sources," though, is not. On many obscure topics, the sources WILL be difficult to locate. Any attempt to turn this requirement into having to provide sources that can be requested from the average library or online will remove a large number of very credible but obscure sources - specialist publications, limited circulation journals, and many other documents.
IMO, those would only be legitimate sources to cite if the subject itself is obscure and known only to specialists. If it's a well-known subject, it would make more sense to use mainstream sources on the subject. If the obscure source is indeed important, it will at least have been cited by someone else. If, for example, you find an obscure source on the Holocaust that is not cited in any mainstream work on the Holocaust, it would be original research to begin to build an argument based on it. (If you thought mainstream Holocaust historians were ignoring some obscure but credible and important source, that would be an issue to take up with them; we're just here to report the consensus in the field, not to create it.)
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
Sean Barrett wrote:
Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
If you use the old Soviet records somebody is bound to bring up the "No original research" rule.
Why are old Soviet records "original research" while old US records (NVR, DANFS, &c.) are okay?
I'm not saying that they are, just that somebody is bound to try to make that point.
Sounds like another strawman. Original research is not finding obscure sources and citing them, but rather drawing original conclusions. The former is nothing like the latter, unless one is deliberately intent on denigrating the Original Research policy by misrepresenting it.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
Sean Barrett wrote:
Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
If you use the old Soviet records somebody is bound to bring up the "No original research" rule.
Why are old Soviet records "original research" while old US records (NVR, DANFS, &c.) are okay?
I'm not saying that they are, just that somebody is bound to try to make that point.
Sounds like another strawman. Original research is not finding obscure sources and citing them, but rather drawing original conclusions. The former is nothing like the latter, unless one is deliberately intent on denigrating the Original Research policy by misrepresenting it.
And how do you propose to know that the conclusion is "original"?
Ec
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
JAY JG wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
Sean Barrett wrote:
Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
If you use the old Soviet records somebody is bound to bring up the "No original research" rule.
Why are old Soviet records "original research" while old US records (NVR, DANFS, &c.) are okay?
I'm not saying that they are, just that somebody is bound to try to make that point.
Sounds like another strawman. Original research is not finding obscure sources and citing them, but rather drawing original conclusions. The former is nothing like the latter, unless one is deliberately intent on denigrating the Original Research policy by misrepresenting it.
And how do you propose to know that the conclusion is "original"?
Because it can't be found in citable sources; that's what makes it original. If it weren't original, someone would have made the argument already, and you could cite them.
Jay.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Sean Barrett wrote:
Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
Iif you use the old Soviet records somebody is bound to bring up the "No original research" rule.
Why are old Soviet records "original research" while old US records (NVR, DANFS, &c.) are okay?
Ease of verification?
In theory, many old US records are accessible by the Freedom of Information Act; I believe something similar exists for many national archives.
Note that I wrote above the words "in theory": in practice, the US government often refuses to release copies of records, or redacts them to remove some or all information -- & sometimes not consistently. The movie _Fahrenheit 911_ has a memorable example where one document was given to a journalist with some information removed -- but not to another.
(I do not have any reliable knowledge about how other governments handle releasing their records, so I won't comment on those cases.)
Years ago, when this topic was raised on this list, I seem to remember that there was a consensus towards requiring all sources cited or used to be *published*. Not only did that mean that the material received some token degree of review, & did not depend on Wikipedia for dissemination into the larger public discussion (which was one reason for the No Original Research rule), but it also allowed a Wikipedia user to verify the citation for her/himself. Thus an unpublished memo from a national or corporate archive written in 1955 should not be cited; but a letter between two ancient rulers that has been translated & published as part of _The Armana Letters_ (published by John Hopkins Press, & for sale on Amazon) can be cited.
I am always happily surprised at what I can access through my local public library's Interlibrary Loan services -- often at no cost to me.
Of course, this requirement leads to other questions. What about rare books or ephemera? For example, if one wanted to write articles on Grunge rock in Seattle (home of Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarten & other well-known bands), _The Rocket_ is an invaluable & authoritative source to cite. However, that newspaper went out of business years ago, & I wouldn't have a clue where I could find copies of specific -- or any -- issues. (It was a free weekly newspaper that could be found at all of the local record stores in Seattle & Portland.) If there is a library with a run of its issues, I doubt that they would share either the originals or a photocopy thru ILL; but then, coming thru old issues of _The Rocket_ or 16th century incunabula seems to me close to performing original research.
Another question is citing untranslated, non-English sources in a English-language Wikipedia. Obviously, many experts write in languages other than English, & some topics cannot be developed beyond a stub without use of non-English sources; however, when a contributor writes an article & only cites, say, Russian or Georgian-language sources for her/his article, I have to take it on faith that not only are the references reported correstly, but that the works even exist.
And I'm sure that there are other issues one could discuss. However, if we could agree that published sources -- either primary or secondary -- can be cited, but unpublished works can not be, this would solve most of the problem.
Geoff
On 6/7/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
And I'm sure that there are other issues one could discuss. However, if we could agree that published sources -- either primary or secondary -- can be cited, but unpublished works can not be, this would solve most of the problem.
That is a position that I could stand behind.
I would be opposed to a suggestion that we should limit ourselves to published sources that can be acquired through Amazon, Google and the average inter-library loan service, however.
Obviously, the easier the sources can be accessed the better, but I would not rule out using rare or old books, magazines and newspapers even if not commonly archived, small publications, and foreign language works.
That said, I think that outside a certain vanishingly small subset of very controversial articles, Wikipedia's problem is not the citing of hard-to-verify sources, but the absense of sources at all. Outside the context of Israel vs. Palestine, certain crackpot science theories, and a few other controversial places, I don't see much of a problem at present.
And I'd rather someone cite an unpublished source than none. It's always possible that a better reference than that unpublished source may be findable by someone else, or a published source that references that unpublished one.
-Matt
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Matt Brown wrote:
On 6/7/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
And I'm sure that there are other issues one could discuss. However, if we could agree that published sources -- either primary or secondary -- can be cited, but unpublished works can not be, this would solve most of the problem.
That is a position that I could stand behind.
Well, I've convinced one more person than I thought I would. ;-)
I would be opposed to a suggestion that we should limit ourselves to published sources that can be acquired through Amazon, Google and the average inter-library loan service, however.
My example was intended to point out the contrast, not as a guideline. In fact, I'm amazed at how easy it is to find a title that is not listed at Amazon or Advanced Book Exchange -- a few of which I've consulted in my writings. If I had to insist on a limit, it would be only to those works listed in the catalogs of the Library of Congress & the British Library -- & maybe one or two other similar institutions. Allowing for duplicates, I estimate that gives us 50-60 million titles, most of which would be available thru the average inter-library loan service.
Obviously, the easier the sources can be accessed the better, but I would not rule out using rare or old books, magazines and newspapers even if not commonly archived, small publications, and foreign language works.
Honestly, if I were to critique a given article for its sources, I am not going to get upset if they include one or two sources out of a dozen that are hard to get ahold of; it's when the article only uses such sources, & I have suspicions about the accuracy of the article.
That said, I think that outside a certain vanishingly small subset of very controversial articles, Wikipedia's problem is not the citing of hard-to-verify sources, but the absense of sources at all. Outside the context of Israel vs. Palestine, certain crackpot science theories, and a few other controversial places, I don't see much of a problem at present.
And I'd rather someone cite an unpublished source than none. It's always possible that a better reference than that unpublished source may be findable by someone else, or a published source that references that unpublished one.
Either case would be troubling to me. Wikipedia is supposed to be no more than a secondary work, not a place to do publish research. With the exception of facts that are either banally obvious or commonplace (e.g. "France is a country in Europe"), if you can't find a published source to cite, then you should consider whether you are writing about something that is not part of Wikipedia's scope; much as that word is dispised here, the subject may not be notable.
(Of course, an objection to this would be the matter of contemporary pop culture: AFAIK, there are no books about subjects like the Lost television series, Ken Jennings, Pokemon trivia. However, these topics have enough of an audience that we should trust that the Wiki method will provide a means to keep bad information from entering the article.)
"Geoff Burling" llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.33.0506071700550.567-100000@joan.burling.com... [snip]
(Of course, an objection to this would be the matter of contemporary pop culture: AFAIK, there are no books about subjects like the Lost television series, Ken Jennings, Pokemon trivia. However, these topics have enough of an audience that we should trust that the Wiki method will provide a means to keep bad information from entering the article.)
Don't worry, this will all be nominated for deletion as "fancruft" anyway :-(
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Sean Barrett wrote:
Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
Iif you use the old Soviet records somebody is bound to bring up the "No original research" rule.
Why are old Soviet records "original research" while old US records (NVR, DANFS, &c.) are okay?
Ease of verification?
In theory, many old US records are accessible by the Freedom of Information Act; I believe something similar exists for many national archives.
There's a gold mine of material available before even needing FOI. For example, all US patent applications made since their big fire are available on line. In about 1970 I remember wandering in a section of university stacks where they were storing booklets received at a rapid rate from various US government agencies. There was no way that any library could keep up with maintaining a subject catalogue of this stuff. My favourite was a pamphlet from the US Army, "The Toxic Effect of Burning Chicken Feathers."
Years ago, when this topic was raised on this list, I seem to remember that there was a consensus towards requiring all sources cited or used to be *published*. Not only did that mean that the material received some token degree of review, & did not depend on Wikipedia for dissemination into the larger public discussion (which was one reason for the No Original Research rule), but it also allowed a Wikipedia user to verify the citation for her/himself. Thus an unpublished memo from a national or corporate archive written in 1955 should not be cited; but a letter between two ancient rulers that has been translated & published as part of _The Armana Letters_ (published by John Hopkins Press, & for sale on Amazon) can be cited.
"Years ago" is wonderfully hyperbolic considering that in most jurisdictions the project is not old enough to attend kindergarten. "Published", in most cases, is a solid objective criterion to use as a starting point. There may still be arguments about whether something really was published. Is a doctoral thesis "published" when it is simply put on University library shelves and made available through interlibrary loan?
I am always happily surprised at what I can access through my local public library's Interlibrary Loan services -- often at no cost to me.
Half the problem faced by many of our contributors is in not knowing the extent of available resources, and how to get at them.
Of course, this requirement leads to other questions. What about rare books or ephemera? For example, if one wanted to write articles on Grunge rock in Seattle (home of Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarten & other well-known bands), _The Rocket_ is an invaluable & authoritative source to cite. However, that newspaper went out of business years ago, & I wouldn't have a clue where I could find copies of specific -- or any -- issues. (It was a free weekly newspaper that could be found at all of the local record stores in Seattle & Portland.) If there is a library with a run of its issues, I doubt that they would share either the originals or a photocopy thru ILL; but then, coming thru old issues of _The Rocket_ or 16th century incunabula seems to me close to performing original research.
To the extent that it can be found, protecting this ephemeral material is a big problem. Copyright permissions would be a nightmare, but in 95 years the newsprint is likely to be so crumbly as to be unusable. Maybe there's a need to be more agressive about building on-line pdf files of this stuff. There is a strong argument for considering such actions to be fair use. The fourth of the factors to be considered is the effect on the copyright holder's market.
Another question is citing untranslated, non-English sources in a English-language Wikipedia. Obviously, many experts write in languages other than English, & some topics cannot be developed beyond a stub without use of non-English sources; however, when a contributor writes an article & only cites, say, Russian or Georgian-language sources for her/his article, I have to take it on faith that not only are the references reported correstly, but that the works even exist.
And I'm sure that there are other issues one could discuss. However, if we could agree that published sources -- either primary or secondary -- can be cited, but unpublished works can not be, this would solve most of the problem.
It's a good starting point, as long as we don't start imposing qualifications on the published material. "Peer reviewed" is a common one that is mentioned. The problem with that is that it's a subjective judgement; determining whether a publication is peer-reviewed requires a significant exercise of POV.
In theory we could go beyond the "published" criterion, but I would approach that with extreme caution. We've been known to have a few anal editors for whom ANY measure of flexibility sets us on the road to chaos and confusion.
Ec
Sean Barrett wrote:
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
There is also the question of whether it is reasonably convenient to access it. For example, a NYT's article might cost 2 bucks but something that requires accessing Nexus or consulting an obscure journal is much more expensive.
So material from an "obscure" journal is less acceptable? I guess my digging into old Soviet naval records for information about their nuclear submarines is a waste of time.
I think Fred made a tiny error in using the word "Obscure" here, but his basic point is certainly valid. A physics journal published by Harvard University and widely consulted and cited by physicists is a valid source -- an obscure website published by the Flat Earth Society is not.
Assessing whether or not sources are valid is well within our range of competence in most cases.
--Jimbo
Sean Barrett a écrit:
steven l. rubenstein was annoyed to be reminded that he had stated for the record:
NPOV does not require that our article on the moon state, "According to some, the moon is made of green cheese, although virtually all astronomers disagree." Don't laugh -- silly statements like this are easy to spot when we are talking about physical phenomena. But they are much harder to spot when talking about historical and cultural phenomena, which is one reason why some content disputes are protracted and cannot be resolved by mediation alone.
Silly statements that are so very hard to spot that they cannot be rebutted and can only be corrected by rendering them unexpressible are not silly. They may be wrong, but they are not speedy-obliteration candidates.
I am very worried that we are seriously discussing the formation of a committee empowered to prohibit unpopular content from Wikipedia and to ban those that feel that it is important to record it.
**seconded**
Anthere
Sean Barrett wrote:
I am very worried that we are seriously discussing the formation of a committee empowered to prohibit unpopular content from Wikipedia and to ban those that feel that it is important to record it.
I don't think that's what we are discussing.
There are dedicated POV warriors who know how to stay within our behavior rules, and they camp out on articles to make sure they continue to say the same POV things. This is a bannable offense, as well it should be. But it is quite difficult for the ArbCom to assess by themselves. Usually we have been able to deal with this by focussing strictly on behavioral issues (3 revert rule, for example, or the fact that many POV warriors have other personality problems that give us other reasons to ban them).
Slim Virgin very astutely identified this problem a few months back: there are people who can write in a pseudo-NPOV way about complete nonsense, and when other editors -- who are not experts in the area -- are asked to come and help, they have a very hard time sorting out what is going on.
I see no problem with empowering the ArbCom in such cases to call on some outside opinions to help understand the facts of the case.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales (jwales@wikia.com) [050613 10:38]:
Sean Barrett wrote:
I am very worried that we are seriously discussing the formation of a committee empowered to prohibit unpopular content from Wikipedia and to ban those that feel that it is important to record it.
I don't think that's what we are discussing.
jguk has already left Wikipedia over the present content-related AC case, feling he was being railroaded. I don't think that counts as a win for Wikipedia - we're talking about a good contributor, not some obnoxious nutter we're better without.
It's a larger version of exasperating one's opponents off the wiki, only this time using the AC as a hammer. So far I'm only seeing taking on content-related cases as setting up a disaster.
- d.
Besides doing a lot of good editing (by repute, as I have only looked at his edit wars involving [[common era]] notation) Jguk believes that the notation AD - BC is vastly superior to the common era notation CE - BCE (which he believes is incomprehensible to our users). Based on that belief he has changed the notation in a number of articles, most of which he does not ordinarily edit, and if reverted, engages in edit wars.
The proposed decision in the arbitration case is under consideration with no remedy proposed having majority support, see:
[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk/Proposed_decision]]
Fred
On Jun 18, 2005, at 5:31 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Jimmy Wales (jwales@wikia.com) [050613 10:38]:
Sean Barrett wrote:
I am very worried that we are seriously discussing the formation of a committee empowered to prohibit unpopular content from Wikipedia and to ban those that feel that it is important to record it.
I don't think that's what we are discussing.
jguk has already left Wikipedia over the present content-related AC case, feling he was being railroaded. I don't think that counts as a win for Wikipedia - we're talking about a good contributor, not some obnoxious nutter we're better without.
It's a larger version of exasperating one's opponents off the wiki, only this time using the AC as a hammer. So far I'm only seeing taking on content-related cases as setting up a disaster.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
To get a handle on how much content-arbitration is really needed, perhaps the people who feel it's required could list some examples of when it would have been useful.
Or perhaps we're discussing a problem that doesn't exist?
Dan
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
It exists, but generally cases fall into a grey area where resolving the content issue is not vital. For example in the Skyring arbitration, the problem is not the content he wants to put in the articles, it is the persistent way he keep arguing and going over the matter again and again, despite his failure to convince the others who edit the articles. It is necessary to look at the article and see whether the article is no good or inaccurate without the material he wants to insert.
Much the same happened in the climate change arbitration. it is not so much that Cortonin is wrong but that he insists on being wrong like a bulldog. Again it helps to analyze the content he insists on to see if if adds to the article or introduces confusion about the underlying scientific principles.
The Njyoder case involves [[gender]], an article which makes sense in a subcultural context but not much sense to Njyoder. A content inquiry as to whether within the subcultural context there there is significant content which might go into the article is helpful.
I think the test is whether without some reference to content questions, the disputes remain unresolved and unresolvable under a theory that one opinion is as good as another. LIke I said earlier, a theory of a flat earth is fine in [[flat earth]] but out of place in [[astrophysics]].
Fred
On Jun 18, 2005, at 7:08 AM, Dan Grey wrote:
To get a handle on how much content-arbitration is really needed, perhaps the people who feel it's required could list some examples of when it would have been useful.
Or perhaps we're discussing a problem that doesn't exist?
Dan
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The Njyoder case involves [[gender]], an article which makes sense in a subcultural context but not much sense to Njyoder. A content inquiry as to whether within the subcultural context there there is significant content which might go into the article is helpful.
Very well put. Thus my idea of having advisory panels in various fields that the ArbCom can consult to help it find out just who is and is not following our content-related policies. 12 people simply do not have enough combined knowledge about everything needed to make this effective except in the most obvious of cases.
I think the test is whether without some reference to content questions, the disputes remain unresolved and unresolvable under a theory that one opinion is as good as another. LIke I said earlier, a theory of a flat earth is fine in [[flat earth]] but out of place in [[astrophysics]].
Another excellent point. If we only looked at violations of purely behavioral policies, then all a POV/OR-pusher would need to do is be persistent and provoke editors working against them into violations of our behavioral policies and guidelines.
It can be *very* frustrating to know what is NPOV and what is and is not original research in an area and have somebody very persistently try to push a POV or OR. Thus I can understand why some outbursts from good editors can happen. Such outbursts can not be condoned, but the reason why they happened should be considered and that information should mitigate any remedy for the outburst and the person provoking the outburst should be sanctioned.
If we (the ArbCom) ding the good editor for violating a behavioral policy and leave the bad editor alone just because we either did not understand the content policy violation or because we are gun-shy from enforcing those policies except in the most blatant of cases, then we have failed in our primary goal; to provide an environment where good editors can create the best encyclopedia possible.
That's why I want the ArbCom to have the ability to consult subject-area advisory panels when needed.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer (maveric149@yahoo.com) [050621 02:50]:
If we (the ArbCom) ding the good editor for violating a behavioral policy and leave the bad editor alone just because we either did not understand the content policy violation or because we are gun-shy from enforcing those policies except in the most blatant of cases, then we have failed in our primary goal; to provide an environment where good editors can create the best encyclopedia possible. That's why I want the ArbCom to have the ability to consult subject-area advisory panels when needed.
We can do that already. However, I foresee only disasters with content arbitration, and it not decreasing POV pushing at all - but giving POV pushers more system to game. I point to the present case as an example.
- d.
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
We can do that already. However, I foresee only disasters with content arbitration, and it not decreasing POV pushing at all - but giving POV pushers more system to game. I point to the present case as an example.
Thus the need for subject-area advisory panels. The 'disaster' you talk about seems to focus on a bad FoF. A subject area advisory panel would have helped the ArbCom avoid such a mistake.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Besides doing a lot of good editing (by repute, as I have only looked at his edit wars involving [[common era]] notation) Jguk believes that the notation AD - BC is vastly superior to the common era notation CE - BCE (which he believes is incomprehensible to our users). Based on that belief he has changed the notation in a number of articles, most of which he does not ordinarily edit, and if reverted, engages in edit wars.
Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he has been on a campaign to remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and has made over 1,000 article edits solely to support that campaign.
Jay.
On 6/19/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Besides doing a lot of good editing (by repute, as I have only looked at his edit wars involving [[common era]] notation) Jguk believes that the notation AD - BC is vastly superior to the common era notation CE - BCE (which he believes is incomprehensible to our users). Based on that belief he has changed the notation in a number of articles, most of which he does not ordinarily edit, and if reverted, engages in edit wars.
Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he has been on a campaign to remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and has made over 1,000 article edits solely to support that campaign.
Jay.
So? There has been a few people campaining the other ways as well. They will probably get bored in the end.
Wikipedia editors do not have to meekly wait until those who are disrupting Wikipedia to "get bored." The dispute resolution process is available to them.
Fred
On Jun 19, 2005, at 4:11 AM, geni wrote:
On 6/19/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Besides doing a lot of good editing (by repute, as I have only looked at his edit wars involving [[common era]] notation) Jguk believes that the notation AD - BC is vastly superior to the common era notation CE - BCE (which he believes is incomprehensible to our users). Based on that belief he has changed the notation in a number of articles, most of which he does not ordinarily edit, and if reverted, engages in edit wars.
Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he has been on a campaign to remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and has made over 1,000 article edits solely to support that campaign.
Jay.
So? There has been a few people campaining the other ways as well. They will probably get bored in the end.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: geni geniice@gmail.com
Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he has been on a campaign
to
remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and has made over 1,000
article
edits solely to support that campaign.
Jay.
So? There has been a few people campaining the other ways as well.
Really? People who edit dozens of articles solely for the purpose of removing BC/AD notation, and who have made hundreds of edits to further that goal over a period of many months? Who did you have in mind?
They will probably get bored in the end.
jguk's campaign lasted for 8 months, from soon after he joined Wikipedia until the time he left. I see no indication that he was becoming bored. Who are these other people, and why do you imagine they will get bored?
Jay.
Jay.
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: geni geniice@gmail.com
Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he
has been on a campaign
to
remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and
has made over 1,000
article
edits solely to support that campaign.
Jay.
So? There has been a few people campaining the
other ways as well.
Really? People who edit dozens of articles solely for the purpose of removing BC/AD notation, and who have made hundreds of edits to further that goal over a period of many months? Who did you have in mind?
SouthernComfort, for one. It was his sole editing procedure from immediately after he was encouraged to engage in it by Slrubenstein after Slrubenstein's failure to get consensus on his BCE POV.
RickK
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
On 6/19/05, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
SouthernComfort, for one. It was his sole editing procedure from immediately after he was encouraged to engage in it by Slrubenstein after Slrubenstein's failure to get consensus on his BCE POV.
I know it might not be entirely obvious just just because someone prefers something doesn't make it 'POV' in the NPOV sense. The only POV intrinsic to the BCE/CE side is that BC/AD is not NPOV. BCE/CE doesn't push a specific world view, it doesn't deny the existence or importance of Jesus, it merely doesn't support that view either.
Just because the side with the "Jesus wasn't God" POV prefer BCE/CE doesn't make using BCE/CE an example of supporting a POV.
So at worst you could claim that it is meta-meta-pov: the use of BCE/CE implies that BC/AD may not be NPOV.
The majority opinion on Wikipedia doesn't support the claim that BCE/CE use is a POV, but rather that the use of BC/AD is so old that the POVness of it has been washed away by time and therefor it is permissible.
On Sunday, June 19, 2005 9:26 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Just because the side with the "Jesus wasn't God" POV prefer BCE/CE doesn't make using BCE/CE an example of supporting a POV.
Please don't be overly broad-brush. I am very much certainly in the former group, and am equally certainly not in the latter. I severly doubt that I am not alone in this, either.
[Snip the rest of the argument based on this logical fallacy]
Yours,
On 6/19/05, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
Just because the side with the "Jesus wasn't God" POV prefer BCE/CE doesn't make using BCE/CE an example of supporting a POV.
Please don't be overly broad-brush. I am very much certainly in the former group, and am equally certainly not in the latter. I severly doubt that I am not alone in this, either.
I omitted the word '''some''' because the implication was being made that BCE/CE itself is POV, which is clearly untrue. The confusion that it is clearly stems from the fact that many people with a particular pov prefer one over the other... This certainly isn't the only reason, as I previously mentioned, it is argued that BCE/CE isn't as widely understood. But this is the reason that causes people to think that the BCE/CE debate is one POV verses another POV.
Since I was specifically discussing the claim that arbcom was getting involved with supporting one POV over another, my primary interest was in demonstrating why BCE/CE isn't POV at all.
That is to say that arbcom may or may not be doing the right thing, but they aren't affirming one POV over another... because if we were to agree that one of the phrasings were non-neutral then it would be the BC/AD nomenclature and we would have no choice but to adopt the BCE/CE form. Since the original post was concerned about arbcom's involvement in deciding NPOV, I think this point is quite important.
[Snip the rest of the argument based on this logical fallacy]
I'm sorry, because I suspect I must be a little dense here... I just can't follow how your (quite correct) criticism of my loosely worded claim in any way invalidates the rest of my message, and I really do wish you had replied point by point.
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxwell@gmail.com) [050620 11:52]:
I omitted the word '''some''' because the implication was being made that BCE/CE itself is POV, which is clearly untrue.
It's nothing of the sort. As was mentioned in the original discussion page, it advocates the BC/AD dating system but puts it under a different name in a claim that this reduces the POV, when it blatantly doesn't. It's also been pushed a lot like a POV.
- d.
-On Monday, June 20, 2005 2:52 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/05, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
Just because the side with the "Jesus wasn't God" POV prefer BCE/CE doesn't make using BCE/CE an example of supporting a POV.
Please don't be overly broad-brush. I am very much certainly in the former group, and am equally certainly not in the latter. I severly doubt that I am not alone in this, either.
I omitted the word '''some''' because the implication was being made that BCE/CE itself is POV, which is clearly untrue.
No, it isn't. Were it "clearly untrue", everyone would see it immediately (that is, after all what those words would mean). I don't. Others don't. Or are we all just being difficult and stating that we fail to see the BCE/CE is NPOV to annoy you (what is termed "trolling")?
The confusion that it is clearly stems from the fact that many people with a particular pov prefer one over the other...
Well, yes, indeed. Something that is regarded by one group of POV-holders as good and another as bad is, generally, well ... How to put this? So terribly tricky. Still, I will try: POV. Gosh. Wasn't actually so hard, when it came down to it.
If group A says that foo is NPOV, but group B say that it is POV, then it by definition cannot be NPOV - because otherwise group B would agree that it was.
In this scenario, I think that the difficulty is that people want something that is, indeed, absolutely NPOV, and acceptable to everyone. However, this is a case, I feel, like too many others, sadly, where there is no such Nirvana solution; we must make do with the least POV use. "Both" sides feel that using "AD" and "BC" is POV, and both are right. However, where they differ is that one side either considers "CE" and "BCE" to be less POV than the others for most people, or fails to see it as POV at all, whereas the other finds it more POV.
[Snip]
Since I was specifically discussing the claim that arbcom was getting involved with supporting one POV over another, my primary interest was in demonstrating why BCE/CE isn't POV at all.
Please, do, go ahead. I await with baited breath.
That is to say that arbcom may or may not be doing the right thing, but they aren't affirming one POV over another...
I disagree; by strongly criticising one side of a wide-ranging edit war, and saying nothing at all about the other, the old proposed rulings were impliticly condoing the POV of those not mentioned, and discarding that of Jguk and others.
because if we were to agree that one of the phrasings were non-neutral then it would be the BC/AD nomenclature and we would have no choice but to adopt the BCE/CE form.
I agree. However, this is not true - *both* are non-neutral, the argument is to the relative neutrality of them two.
Since the original post was concerned about arbcom's involvement in deciding NPOV, I think this point is quite important.
I absolutely agree. I just disagree with your conclusion. :-)
[Snip the rest of the argument based on this logical fallacy]
I'm sorry, because I suspect I must be a little dense here... I just can't follow how your (quite correct) criticism of my loosely worded claim in any way invalidates the rest of my message, and I really do wish you had replied point by point.
Sorry. In future I will reply, point-by-point, with "See above.". I had written this thrice before deciding to merely snip.
Yours,
On 6/19/05, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
I omitted the word '''some''' because the implication was being made that BCE/CE itself is POV, which is clearly untrue.
No, it isn't. Were it "clearly untrue", everyone would see it immediately (that is, after all what those words would mean). I don't. Others don't. Or are we all just being difficult and stating that we fail to see the BCE/CE is NPOV to annoy you (what is termed "trolling")?
Well, actually, I hadn't yet seen the overt claim that BCE/CE isn't NPOV... this is a first, more on that in a bit.
What I've seen claimed many times that that BCE/CE isn't any more or less NPOV than BC/AD and that because of the other issues we should prefer BC/AD. This is an argument that I am inclined to agree with.
Well, yes, indeed. Something that is regarded by one group of POV-holders as good and another as bad is, generally, well ... How to put this? So terribly tricky. Still, I will try: POV. Gosh. Wasn't actually so hard, when it came down to it.
I believe you are incorrect here. The relationship only goes one way. Only a POV supporter will agree with a strongly non-neutral position, but just because someone is a POV pusher it is not necessary that everything they support is non-neutral.
BC/BCE and BC/AD can both be NPOV even if some in the BC/BCE camp claim that BC/AD isn't NPOV and just because some of the advocates of either view carry some strong POVs this doesn't make it a POV issue.
You know, it is possible for people to disagree and for the argument to have absolutely nothing to do with NPOV.
If group A says that foo is NPOV, but group B say that it is POV, then it by definition cannot be NPOV - because otherwise group B would agree that it was.
I think you need to re-read the page on NPOV. NPOV doesn't mean that everyone always agrees.
In this scenario, I think that the difficulty is that people want something that is, indeed, absolutely NPOV, and acceptable to everyone. However, this is a case, I feel, like too many others, sadly, where there is no such Nirvana solution; we must make do with the least POV use. "Both" sides feel that using "AD" and "BC" is POV, and both are right. However, where they differ is that one side either considers "CE" and "BCE" to be less POV than the others for most people, or fails to see it as POV at all, whereas the other finds it more POV.
From your tone it sound like you're quite tired of this matter, ...
And I can't blame you.. As I've said, the issue has already been well cooked on the wiki. But I'm curious... What makes you believe that BCE/CE isn't neutral and that it's less so than AD/BC?
I get the argument against AD/BC, that it pushes a specific idea about the existence and role of Jesus and I get the counter arguments.. usually that common use and time have tempered the POVness to where no one really associates it with any POV. I can also see how people may be concerned that BCE/CE isn't in common enough use and that it may represents a degree of national snobbery, since the usage is more common in some English speaking nations than others.
But I simply don't see why BCE/CE isn't as neutral as any ideal nomenclature for naming eras.
Not all disagreements are a matters of neutrality.
Since I was specifically discussing the claim that arbcom was getting involved with supporting one POV over another, my primary interest was in demonstrating why BCE/CE isn't POV at all.
Please, do, go ahead. I await with baited breath.
Well, I've said my mind on the matter and you're still unconvinced. ... I did not claim that my demonstration would be effective. :)
I disagree; by strongly criticising one side of a wide-ranging edit war, and saying nothing at all about the other, the old proposed rulings were impliticly condoing the POV of those not mentioned, and discarding that of Jguk and others.
It seems to me that arbcom was specifically acting against users who have broken the agreement to allow both forms. In the arbcom case there is no substantially cited history of the 'other side' following around the people they disagree with and revising every use. If you are aware of such a case, I highly suggest you take it to the arbcom.
because if we were to agree that one of the phrasings were non-neutral then it would be the BC/AD nomenclature and we would have no choice but to adopt the BCE/CE form.
I agree. However, this is not true - *both* are non-neutral, the argument is to the relative neutrality of them two.
Well, this is a misunderstanding on my part then.
But I still don't see that this is of merit to the arbcom issue: If someone has been following around editors that write using BC/AD in articles containing mostly BC/AD and changing it, then I think they are also deserving a reprimand and I'm confident that arbcom would agree.
I absolutely agree. I just disagree with your conclusion. :-)
Well, we have to start with something...
Sorry. In future I will reply, point-by-point, with "See above.". I had written this thrice before deciding to merely snip.
I certainly understand the effort that goes into writing a thought out reply, and I promise that I am making a genuine attempt to understand your position and not merely trolling you. Thank you for your time and effort.
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: geni geniice@gmail.com
Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he
has been on a campaign
to
remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and
has made over 1,000
article
edits solely to support that campaign.
Jay.
So? There has been a few people campaining the
other ways as well.
Really? People who edit dozens of articles solely for the purpose of removing BC/AD notation, and who have made hundreds of edits to further that goal over a period of many months? Who did you have in mind?
SouthernComfort, for one. It was his sole editing procedure from immediately after he was encouraged to engage in it by Slrubenstein after Slrubenstein's failure to get consensus on his BCE POV.
RickK
Rick, SouthernComfort edited a narrow set of subject topics (Iran-related), over a period of a few weeks, as part of his general interest in Iran; included in that was his conversion of pages from BC/AD to BCE/CE. He did not edit dozens of articles over a period of many months for the sole purpose of (and to which he contributed nothing else but) date notation conversions. If jguk had converted cricket related articles he was already editing to BC/AD, that would have been one thing; but he has been on an obvious campaign to remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia from any article he comes across which uses it, using the pretense of either "consistency" or "original usage" depending on which best serves his purposes. He still insists on this pretense, rather than admitting the nature of his campaign, though evidence has been presented which shows its specious nature. He has even gone so far as to try to remove all links to www.religioustolerance.org from Wikipedia, a reasonably popular (Alexa ranking 10,000-11,000) religion-oriented website promoting religious tolerance, using the pretense that it is a "blog", but with the obvious reason being that it supports BCE/CE notation. I haven't seen behaviour comparable to this by any of the pro BCE/CE editors.
Jay.
Rick, SouthernComfort edited a narrow set of subject topics (Iran-related), over a period of a few weeks, as part of his general interest in Iran; included in that was his conversion of pages from BC/AD to BCE/CE. He did not edit dozens of articles over a period of many months for the sole purpose of (and to which he contributed nothing else but) date notation conversions. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
SouthernComfort had no previous contibutions to [[Zoroastrianism]].
From: geni geniice@gmail.com
Rick, SouthernComfort edited a narrow set of subject topics
(Iran-related),
over a period of a few weeks, as part of his general interest in Iran; included in that was his conversion of pages from BC/AD to BCE/CE. He
did
not edit dozens of articles over a period of many months for the sole purpose of (and to which he contributed nothing else but) date notation conversions.
SouthernComfort had no previous contibutions to [[Zoroastrianism]].
[[Zoroastrianism]] is obviously Iran-related, regardless of whether or not SouthernComfort had edited there before; the religion originated in the region, was once the official religion of the Persian empire, and the country still contains the largest population of Zoroastrians in the world.
Jay.
On Sunday, June 19, 2005 4:18 PM, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: geni geniice@gmail.com
Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he has been on a campaign to remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and has made over 1,000 article edits solely to support that campaign.
Jay.
So? There has been a few people campaining the other ways as well.
[Snip]
They will probably get bored in the end.
jguk's campaign lasted for 8 months,
Indeed. And the United States was continuously at war with Germany from 1918 until 1945, and has been so with the United Kingdom since 1776.
*yawns*
[Snip]
Yours,
From: "James D. Forrester" james@jdforrester.org
They will probably get bored in the end.
jguk's campaign lasted for 8 months,
Indeed. And the United States was continuously at war with Germany from 1918 until 1945, and has been so with the United Kingdom since 1776.
*yawns*
[Snip]
Hmm. I'm not sure what to make of your rather "snippy" response. The United States has not, in fact, been continuously at war with Germany for that perios, nor with the UK. However, jguk did indeed make edit articles solely for the purpose of deleting BCE/CE for 8 months, almost the entire time he has been editing here, including deletions of BCE/CE references in every one of those eight months. In all it was over 1000 edits. We've had other editors (almost always anonymous) come in here and remove BCE/CE references from several dozen, or even several hundred, articles over a period of a day or two, but I've never seen one as persistent as jguk. And by the way, contrary to geni's contention, I've never seen an anonymous editor come in and edit dozens or hundreds of articles solely for the purpose of converting BC/AD to BCE/CE - the phenomenon seems to be one-way only.
Jay.
On 6/20/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Hmm. I'm not sure what to make of your rather "snippy" response. The United States has not, in fact, been continuously at war with Germany for that perios, nor with the UK. However, jguk did indeed make edit articles solely for the purpose of deleting BCE/CE for 8 months, almost the entire time he has been editing here, including deletions of BCE/CE references in every one of those eight months. In all it was over 1000 edits. We've had other editors (almost always anonymous) come in here and remove BCE/CE references from several dozen, or even several hundred, articles over a period of a day or two, but I've never seen one as persistent as jguk. And by the way, contrary to geni's contention, I've never seen an anonymous editor come in and edit dozens or hundreds of articles solely for the purpose of converting BC/AD to BCE/CE - the phenomenon seems to be one-way only.
Perhaps it's the Almighty, bending Wikipedia to His POV?
From: fun@thingy.apana.org.au (David Gerard)
Jimmy Wales (jwales@wikia.com) [050613 10:38]:
Sean Barrett wrote:
I am very worried that we are seriously discussing the formation of a committee empowered to prohibit unpopular content from Wikipedia and
to
ban those that feel that it is important to record it.
I don't think that's what we are discussing.
jguk has already left Wikipedia over the present content-related AC case, feling he was being railroaded. I don't think that counts as a win for Wikipedia - we're talking about a good contributor, not some obnoxious nutter we're better without.
It's a larger version of exasperating one's opponents off the wiki, only this time using the AC as a hammer. So far I'm only seeing taking on content-related cases as setting up a disaster.
jguk was a good contributor when it came to cricket related articles; he was pretty obnoxious when it came to the use of BCE/CE. Also, his leaving is recent; many people who have been sanctioned by ArbCom, or even threatened with sanction, return after a few weeks. The way I see it, the good contributors who leave in exasperation are more often never involved with ArbCom, and are driven away by the people who eventually do get sanctioned by ArbCom.
Jay. Jay.