*Sam Korn* smoddy at gmail.com <wikien-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Neutrality%20enforcement%3A%20a%20proposal&In-Reply-To=7c402e010905081322n210b417p376e7dc413f750bf%40mail.gmail.com> *Fri May 8 20:37:10 UTC 2009*
This is the key point, I think. We don't have an absolute definition of neutrality. We don't even have a "I know it when I see it" kind of system. Neutrality -- everywhere -- is a work in progress. Now,
SlimVirgin recognises this, which is why the proposal reads
"However, looking at an editor's contributions as a whole, it should be clear to any reasonable, and reasonably well-informed, onlooker that the editor is regularly and substantively trying to be fair to
both sides."
That is obviously an attempt to move away from requiring neutrality and towards requiring a good-faith effort towards neutrality, which is the only way the proposal could work.
That's exactly right. All this group would be looking for are good-faith efforts to edit in accordance with the NPOV policy. It's not an attempt to control content, but behaviour. Perhaps we should change the title to reflect that.
Yes, it could be gamed, but it would be such a hassle for the gamers that only the most determined would do it, and the most determined won't be stopped by any process we put in place.
If people think the mailing list is too cabalistic, we can get rid of that. The question is whether the spirit of the proposal might work. The details can always be changed.
Also, bear in mind that the proposal is that this would be an *experiment* regarding the I/P articles, because nothing else has worked. It could be time-limited to ensure it doesn't turn into a permanent fixture, or get expanded, without further community input.
Sarah
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This is the key point, I think. We don't have an absolute definition of neutrality. We don't even have a "I know it when I see it" kind of system. Neutrality -- everywhere -- is a work in progress. Now,
That's exactly right. All this group would be looking for are good-faith efforts to edit in accordance with the NPOV policy. It's not an attempt to control content, but behaviour. Perhaps we should change the title to reflect that.
You lost me. If you say its all about the content, I'd be on board. You say its about "behaviour[-alism]," and I go now elsewhere to let you rethink the idea entirely.
-SV
Lilliputian nationalist form a network and come over to Wikipedia, turning the article about Blefuscu into a travesty. A lone Blefuscu native sees the imbalance and tries to address it, engaging in mediation and eventually arbitration. Afterward the Lilliputians successfully get the Blefuscuan topic banned because the Blefuscuan isn't adding to the imbalance of negative information about his own country.
Interesting.
-Durova
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:06 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This is the key point, I think. We don't have an absolute definition of neutrality. We don't even have a "I know it when I see it" kind of system. Neutrality -- everywhere -- is a work in progress. Now,
That's exactly right. All this group would be looking for are good-faith efforts to edit in accordance with the NPOV policy. It's not an attempt
to
control content, but behaviour. Perhaps we should change the title to reflect that.
You lost me. If you say its all about the content, I'd be on board. You say its about "behaviour[-alism]," and I go now elsewhere to let you rethink the idea entirely.
-SV _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm afraid the proposal will work to the advantage of one side of the dispute, to the detriment of the other. One side is generally well educated and familiar with looking at both sides of an issue; the other is not, with no meaningful access to either education or sophisticated cultural memes.
Fred
*Sam Korn* smoddy at gmail.com <wikien-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Neutrality%20enforcement%3A%20a%20proposal&In-Reply-To=7c402e010905081322n210b417p376e7dc413f750bf%40mail.gmail.com> *Fri May 8 20:37:10 UTC 2009*
This is the key point, I think. We don't have an absolute definition of neutrality. We don't even have a "I know it when I see it" kind of system. Neutrality -- everywhere -- is a work in progress. Now,
SlimVirgin recognises this, which is why the proposal reads
"However, looking at an editor's contributions as a whole, it should be clear to any reasonable, and reasonably well-informed, onlooker that the editor is regularly and substantively trying to be fair to
both sides."
That is obviously an attempt to move away from requiring neutrality and towards requiring a good-faith effort towards neutrality, which is the only way the proposal could work.
That's exactly right. All this group would be looking for are good-faith efforts to edit in accordance with the NPOV policy. It's not an attempt to control content, but behaviour. Perhaps we should change the title to reflect that.
Yes, it could be gamed, but it would be such a hassle for the gamers that only the most determined would do it, and the most determined won't be stopped by any process we put in place.
If people think the mailing list is too cabalistic, we can get rid of that. The question is whether the spirit of the proposal might work. The details can always be changed.
Also, bear in mind that the proposal is that this would be an *experiment* regarding the I/P articles, because nothing else has worked. It could be time-limited to ensure it doesn't turn into a permanent fixture, or get expanded, without further community input.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Lilliputian nationalist form a network and come over to Wikipedia, turning the article about Blefuscu into a travesty. A lone Blefuscu native sees the imbalance and tries to address it, engaging in mediation and eventually arbitration. Afterward the Lilliputians successfully get the Blefuscuan topic banned because the Blefuscuan isn't adding to the imbalance of negative information about his own country.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I'm afraid the proposal will work to the advantage of one side of the dispute, to the detriment of the other. One side is generally well educated and familiar with looking at both sides of an issue; the other is not, with no meaningful access to either education or sophisticated cultural memes.
Certainly is true that one side is nationalistic and self-centered and the other is undereducated and lacking in conceptual sophistication. But how does it help our discussion to to say either of these things?
-SV
2009/5/8 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Certainly is true that one side is nationalistic and self-centered and the other is undereducated and lacking in conceptual sophistication. But how does it help our discussion to to say either of these things?
The trouble with ethnic conflict articles is that, rather than a few problem editors, there's an effectively infinite stream of partisans. (For whatever reason: local education is often partisan rather than NPOV?) So, even though a core of opinionated-though-neutral editors accumulates, there's an eternal stream of people who don't know and don't care about NPOV or Wikipedia principles in general - as far as they're concerned, someone is being WRONG on the Internet.
- d.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:24 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The trouble with ethnic conflict articles is that, rather than a few problem editors, there's an effectively infinite stream of partisans. (For whatever reason: local education is often partisan rather than NPOV?) So, even though a core of opinionated-though-neutral editors accumulates, there's an eternal stream of people who don't know and don't care about NPOV or Wikipedia principles in general - as far as they're concerned, someone is being WRONG on the Internet.
Well, at least English language training can help, at least to give people a foundation. And for those with sufficient English proficiency and the interest to come and participate, Wikipedia can give them an education - one way or another. It's in everybody's interest that such education be less "enforced" and be instead more enlightening, and that's why I think people aren't so interested in concepts of "enforcement" as they are in collaboration.
-SV
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:24 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/8 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Certainly is true that one side is nationalistic and self-centered and the other is undereducated and lacking in conceptual sophistication. But how does it help our discussion to to say either of these things?
The trouble with ethnic conflict articles is that, rather than a few problem editors, there's an effectively infinite stream of partisans. (For whatever reason: local education is often partisan rather than NPOV?) So, even though a core of opinionated-though-neutral editors accumulates, there's an eternal stream of people who don't know and don't care about NPOV or Wikipedia principles in general - as far as they're concerned, someone is being WRONG on the Internet.
Indeed. The solution to Israel-Palestine disputes on Wikipedia is that there be some lasting resolution to the meatspace Israel-Palestine conflict. Sadly, I think that is beyond the capabilities of even our esteemed Arbitration Committee.
Yes, primary and secondary education in history is almost always pro-that country's POV. So editors arrive having learned certain things in respectable settings and sincerely believe what they picked up in the classroom. A relatively small number of people study beyond that, many of whom read with the unrecognized intention of confirming the bias they've already acquired.
So of all our site's long term disputes, nationalism conflicts would be among the hardest to solve with the NPOV enforcement model. In medicine, by contrast, there's relative agreement about what's mainstream and what isn't.
-Durova
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:24 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/8 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Certainly is true that one side is nationalistic and self-centered and
the
other is undereducated and lacking in conceptual sophistication. But how does it help our discussion to to say either of these things?
The trouble with ethnic conflict articles is that, rather than a few problem editors, there's an effectively infinite stream of partisans. (For whatever reason: local education is often partisan rather than NPOV?) So, even though a core of opinionated-though-neutral editors accumulates, there's an eternal stream of people who don't know and don't care about NPOV or Wikipedia principles in general - as far as they're concerned, someone is being WRONG on the Internet.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 5/8/09 6:30 PM, stevertigo at stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Well, at least English language training can help, at least to give people a foundation. And for those with sufficient English proficiency and the interest to come and participate, Wikipedia can give them an education - one way or another. It's in everybody's interest that such education be less "enforced" and be instead more enlightening, and that's why I think people aren't so interested in concepts of "enforcement" as they are in collaboration.
The best contribution to this thread so far!
PS: Another exclusive mailing list, Sarah :-(.
Marc Riddell
Heh, not necessarily so easy.
Over here in California it isn't very hard to find respectable history books that go on about how mild and paternalistic the mission system was, and that just happen to mention in passing that the local indigenous population declined by something like three-quarters over forty years.
Ask how those facts could possibly be compatible, and a common answer is "Well we don't really know how many of them there were in the beginning anyway."
English proficiency on both sides doesn't make things easier at all when you sit a few individuals like that in the same room with a half dozen of the remaining Chumash.
-Durova
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 5/8/09 6:30 PM, stevertigo at stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Well, at least English language training can help, at least to give
people a
foundation. And for those with sufficient English proficiency and the interest to come and participate, Wikipedia can give them an education -
one
way or another. It's in everybody's interest that such education be less "enforced" and be instead more enlightening, and that's why I think
people
aren't so interested in concepts of "enforcement" as they are in collaboration.
The best contribution to this thread so far!
PS: Another exclusive mailing list, Sarah :-(.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Lilliputian nationalist form a network and come over to Wikipedia, turning the article about Blefuscu into a travesty. A lone Blefuscu native sees the imbalance and tries to address it, engaging in mediation and eventually arbitration. Afterward the Lilliputians successfully get the Blefuscuan topic banned because the Blefuscuan isn't adding to the imbalance of negative information about his own country.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I'm afraid the proposal will work to the advantage of one side of the dispute, to the detriment of the other. One side is generally well educated and familiar with looking at both sides of an issue; the other is not, with no meaningful access to either education or sophisticated cultural memes.
Certainly is true that one side is nationalistic and self-centered and the other is undereducated and lacking in conceptual sophistication. But how does it help our discussion to to say either of these things?
-SV
Our debate should be grounded in the realities of the situation. Remedies based on abstract principlea will produce unexpected results when applied to a situation which was not considered in their formulation.
Fred
David Gerard wrote:
The trouble with ethnic conflict articles is that, rather than a few problem editors, there's an effectively infinite stream of partisans. (For whatever reason: local education is often partisan rather than NPOV?) So, even though a core of opinionated-though-neutral editors accumulates, there's an eternal stream of people who don't know and don't care about NPOV or Wikipedia principles in general - as far as they're concerned, someone is being WRONG on the Internet.
Proponents of "neutrality enforcement" need to make a case meeting a number of points.
(1) Why is this not a classical slippery slope, in which every area with conflicts on the site will eventually want its own watchdog? (2) The thing is obviously BITEy, and as David says there will be people constantly bitten. (3) Provides a disincentive to compromising, if instead there is a mechanism to lobby privately and remove an "opponent". (4) Bottom line, we believe content is firmly in the hands of the community. Such a proposal tends to turn this into content being (for the worst cases) in the hands of a small group not subject to direct democracy/accountability of any kind. I rather agree with Fred Bauder's comment that we would tend to see the pendulum at one extreme in such cases. In any case this seems a massive innovation in the handling of content, and I feel no happiness whenever the 'hard cases' drive content policy.
Charles