The press concentrate on the wiki method and editability as the most amazing thing about Wikipedia.
But I think NPOV is possibly a more important innovation. Other sources aim to explain the view they hold or to be authoritative; NPOV describes the views and has whatever authority that confers.
I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance: Explain NPOV in a sentence.
Two sentences if you have to. But we need something that's not only accurate and complete, but shows it's obviously the right thing once explained.
This is what I said in an email interview a few months ago. Note it's horribly long-winded because I couldn't think of a short way to put it. Your suggestions are most welcomed.
"One of the keys to Wikipedia's success in my mind is the Neutral Point of View. I think this is actually our 'secret sauce.' Rather than advocate something or hold it to be the Truth (capital T), it tries to describe views of the truth per their relevance. This is an editorial judgement call, and perfect neutrality is of course an unachievable goal, but I do think it provides a good editorial compass for us. And neutral-point-of-view writing on subjects seems to be drastically rare. That's something Wikipedia does that no-one else in fact has as a key goal. One of my specialist subjects is Scientology (I am apparently what passes for an expert critic) and there's nearly no neutral writing on the subject outside Wikipedia - critical sites are detailed but really impassioned, Church sites are low-key but miss lots of stuff the critics consider important; the coverage in Wikipedia, by writing neutrally with high-quality and verifiable references, is often very good. It's far from perfect, but it's an interesting thing we do, other than the wiki work method, that is actually *new*. NPOV is basically how 20,000 active editors with wildly divergent views can keep from being at each others' throats. (Most of the time ;-)"
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Explain NPOV in a sentence. Two sentences if you have to.
For even the most controversial subjects, Wikipedia strives to construct a single description which partisans on all sides can agree with. Such a "neutral point of view" description involves a certain amount of compromise, but more importantly, it requires stripping the discussion of hyperbole, speculation, and judgemental tone, and instead confining the discussion to something approximating objective truth.
This has a couple of problems, but it might be a decent starting point.
1. The words "description" and "discussion" are repeated and not quite right.
2. The last four words are a bit too grandiose, and will invite especial criticism from moral relativists who believe there's no such thing as objective truth. I'd originally written "...confining the discussion to well-sourced facts", but that's weak, and invites a different sort of debate since our verifiability policies, though important, are problematic.
On Aug 7, 2006, at 6:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance: Explain NPOV in a sentence.
Amazing that an arbitrator would not be familiar with this:
[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
Fred
On 8/7/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Amazing that an arbitrator would not be familiar with this:
[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
Let's go further: All articles must contain all significant viewpoints about their topics, represented without bias, and given space in proportion to their acceptance in the relevant communities.
Incidentally, [[WP:NPOV]] has (now that I think about it), an awful and useless "nutshell" summary: "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals."
It doesn't even mention the critical bit, that all relevant views are supposed to be there. According to that summary, [[GWB]] could simply contain GWB bashing with no rebuttal, as "fairly" representing the views of Democrats...
Steve
On 07/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, [[WP:NPOV]] has (now that I think about it), an awful and useless "nutshell" summary: "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals."
You're the one with the most experience in doing nutshell summaries people will accept ;-)
- d.
On 07/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't even mention the critical bit, that all relevant views are supposed to be there. According to that summary, [[GWB]] could simply contain GWB bashing with no rebuttal, as "fairly" representing the views of Democrats...
I like the fact that when you combine NPOV and third-party verifiability, you get that critical views are relevant only insofar as they too can be documented. e.g. [[Michael Moore]] needs a critical section; an article on a minorly notable scientist probably won't.
- d.
On 07/08/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Aug 7, 2006, at 6:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance: Explain NPOV in a sentence.
Amazing that an arbitrator would not be familiar with this:
Ex-arb!
/me runs away from job v fast
[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
Yes, though it's not quite the media-friendly soundbite I'm after. Hmm.
- d.
On 8/7/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Aug 7, 2006, at 6:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance: Explain NPOV in a sentence.
Amazing that an arbitrator would not be familiar with this:
[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
I'd add one more sentence on there, something like, "Wikipedia does not attempt to describe truth itself, but rather to represent the truth as regarded by relevant experts." Except snappier. I think that's a key part of the epistemological position Wikipedia takes -- we shove off the hard issue of "truth" onto others. (In this respect the line between NPOV and NOR is pretty blurry.)
FF
[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (NPOV) contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view which have been published in reliable sources regarding a subject.
Fred
On 8/7/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Aug 7, 2006, at 6:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance: Explain NPOV in a sentence.
Amazing that an arbitrator would not be familiar with this:
[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
I'd add one more sentence on there, something like, "Wikipedia does not attempt to describe truth itself, but rather to represent the truth as regarded by relevant experts." Except snappier. I think that's a key part of the epistemological position Wikipedia takes -- we shove off the hard issue of "truth" onto others. (In this respect the line between NPOV and NOR is pretty blurry.)
Blurring the NPOV/NOR line in a brief description like this may be a good thing, because if may lead to an opportunity to give a one to two sentence followup about NOR.
On 8/7/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The press concentrate on the wiki method and editability as the most amazing thing about Wikipedia.
But I think NPOV is possibly a more important innovation. Other sources aim to explain the view they hold or to be authoritative; NPOV describes the views and has whatever authority that confers.
I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance: Explain NPOV in a sentence.
Maybe this joke only works in a society where the original quote is familiar to a wider audience. Besides this, how about this alteration:
"The communists have only tried to change the world, in various ways; the point is to describe it"
Just a thought, Mathias
On 8/7/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The press concentrate on the wiki method and editability as the most amazing thing about Wikipedia.
But I think NPOV is possibly a more important innovation.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance: Explain NPOV in a sentence. Two sentences if you have to.
"We aim to describe, neutrally and fairly, all significant viewpoints on a subject, without giving any viewpoint weight undue to its prominence within the relevant field. Our goal is not to advocate or rebut any viewpoint, nor to present a new viewpoint, but to describe existing ones in a manner that partisans on all sides can be satisfied with."
This definition doesn't cover sources and attribution, but it is already fairly long, and it could easily be covered by using an accompanying illustration, perhaps referencing the formulation summarised from Jimbo's "NPOV and new physics" email (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006653.html), under the "undue weight" section of the NPOV page.
I can't think of the perfect example right now, but it would need to be one that has one or more majority views, a significant minority view (presented, say, by several reputable people in the relevant field), and perhaps a few extreme minority views which can be unproblematically omitted.
Some of these terms may also require clarification, such as "fair" (not describing views with a partisan tone, rather "with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible").
On 8/7/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The press concentrate on the wiki method and editability as the most amazing thing about Wikipedia.
But I think NPOV is possibly a more important innovation. Other sources aim to explain the view they hold or to be authoritative; NPOV describes the views and has whatever authority that confers.
I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance: Explain NPOV in a sentence.
.....
- d.
"NPOV is fairly describing things or beliefs without succumbing to them."
~maru
On 07/08/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Explain NPOV in a sentence.
"NPOV is fairly describing things or beliefs without succumbing to them."
Oh, I do like that one. How about "without advocating them"?
"Neutral Point Of View means to describe things or beliefs fairly without advocating them. This is surprisingly rare in reference materials, which often present a supported but partisan view, or seek to discern absolute truth ..." etc.
- d.
On 8/7/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"NPOV is fairly describing things or beliefs without succumbing to them."
Oh, I do like that one. How about "without advocating them"?
I think "succumbing" has the extra meaning that often one "succumbs" to a belief by attempting to debunk it. This was common at [[Safe Speed]] for instance - although most of the group's claims were clearly baloney, some of our editors were getting sucked into attempting to disprove them, falling afoul of NPOV. I'm not sure how to put that succinctly though - "without taking a side"? "without trying to prove or disprove them"? "without regard to their inherent worth"?
Steve
On 07/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"NPOV is fairly describing things or beliefs without succumbing to them."
Oh, I do like that one. How about "without advocating them"?
I think "succumbing" has the extra meaning that often one "succumbs" to a belief by attempting to debunk it.
Oh yes.
I'm not sure how to put that succinctly though - "without taking a side"? "without trying to prove or disprove them"? "without regard to their inherent worth"?
"without taking sides" is a good start IMO.
- d.
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"NPOV is fairly describing things or beliefs without succumbing to them."
Oh, I do like that one. How about "without advocating them"?
I think "succumbing" has the extra meaning that often one "succumbs" to a belief by attempting to debunk it. This was common at [[Safe Speed]] for instance - although most of the group's claims were clearly baloney, some of our editors were getting sucked into attempting to disprove them, falling afoul of NPOV. I'm not sure how to put that succinctly though - "without taking a side"? "without trying to prove or disprove them"? "without regard to their inherent worth"?
Steve
I was going for a sort of protean conception there- we all have different ideas of what "succumbing" to a POV might be; perhaps it is simply avoiding it and not speaking of it, or mentioning things one should not, etc. But it always contains a sense that you are treating this subject different than other subjects. Its opposite, not succumbing, carries connotations of objective trustworthiness: if one has not succumbed, then one can be trusted to give an informative and inherently fair account of matters (to the best of one's ability).
Besides, it isn't a commonly used word and makes it wonderfully succint.
~maru
NPOV is the radical notion that people can draw conclusions from information.
NPOV is the idea that one can and should separate presentations of fact from interpretations of them.
NPOV is the belief that the most horrible thing we can do to our crazy contributors is accurately describe their viewpoints.
NPOV is the belief that for any viewpoint, reasonable or crazy, the fairest thing to do with it is describe it accurately.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On Aug 7, 2006, at 8:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
The press concentrate on the wiki method and editability as the most amazing thing about Wikipedia.
But I think NPOV is possibly a more important innovation. Other sources aim to explain the view they hold or to be authoritative; NPOV describes the views and has whatever authority that confers.
I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance: Explain NPOV in a sentence.
Two sentences if you have to. But we need something that's not only accurate and complete, but shows it's obviously the right thing once explained.
This is what I said in an email interview a few months ago. Note it's horribly long-winded because I couldn't think of a short way to put it. Your suggestions are most welcomed.
"One of the keys to Wikipedia's success in my mind is the Neutral Point of View. I think this is actually our 'secret sauce.' Rather than advocate something or hold it to be the Truth (capital T), it tries to describe views of the truth per their relevance. This is an editorial judgement call, and perfect neutrality is of course an unachievable goal, but I do think it provides a good editorial compass for us. And neutral-point-of-view writing on subjects seems to be drastically rare. That's something Wikipedia does that no-one else in fact has as a key goal. One of my specialist subjects is Scientology (I am apparently what passes for an expert critic) and there's nearly no neutral writing on the subject outside Wikipedia - critical sites are detailed but really impassioned, Church sites are low-key but miss lots of stuff the critics consider important; the coverage in Wikipedia, by writing neutrally with high-quality and verifiable references, is often very good. It's far from perfect, but it's an interesting thing we do, other than the wiki work method, that is actually *new*. NPOV is basically how 20,000 active editors with wildly divergent views can keep from being at each others' throats. (Most of the time ;-)"
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phil Sandifer wrote:
NPOV is the radical notion that people can draw conclusions from information.
You're obviously an absurdist. People can't draw their own conclusions; that's what politicians and the media are for!
Frankly, I think the problem with describing NPOV is that the consensus formulation is a bit wrongheaded; there are some inherent contraditions in it. In short, the problem is talking about NPOV as anything other than an ideal goal.
In other words, saying that X is NPOV and Y isn't doesn't really make sense. You can say that X approaches the neutral point of view better than Y.
Once we recognize that NPOV is an ideal that we are asymptotically approaching, discussing it becomes a lot easier.
That means there's not "a NPOV", there's "the NPOV".
Wikipedia will never achieve the NPOV until it encompasses all knowledge (because selective bias is a form of bias). Any one article can't be truly written in the NPOV because again, its limitations, its omissions keep it from completeness.
We see this in religious and philosophical thought with the recognition that objectivity requires omniscience.
Even if Wikipedia ever encompasses all of human knowledge, it will still be hopelessly anthropocentric.
So NPOV is a goal we are asymptotically attempting to achieve.
So my one sentence version of NPOV, which I wrote *years* ago:
NPOV means, as a policy, "Pick the more neutral version".
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NPOV_is_an_ideal
P.S. As George Orwell pointed out, acronyms are execrable. NPOV stands for "neutral point of view", which is a noun phrase. Not an adjective, adverb, or verb, as it's often used (most often as an adjective). So, I would say that "neutrality" or "objectivity" are perfectly good words that describe what NPOV gets at.
"NPOV is a recipe to create self-contradictionary, unreadable articles that misrepresent the Truth(TM)"
Here's a question:
Can you even say "X" is "not npov"? When X is a view, then according to npov, it should be included when it is relevant.
Is npov a recipe for contradiction? Example, fictional article [[Is pie good?]] with the contents of:
"Pie is good [1]. Pie is bad [2]."
It doesn't get better if you add attributions:
"Bill says, pie is good[1]. Bob says, pie is bad[2]"
Or 'biased attribution' style that is recommended.
"Bill who is very knowledgeable says, pie is good[1]. Bob, who is no pie expert, claims pie is bad[2]."
Or the 'typical wikipedia style as of now'
"Pie experts insist that pie is good[1], while critics argue that pie is bad[2]."
Usefulness of the article in all cases? Zero. My question whether pie is good or not (which is why I went to that article) have not been answered.
My suggestion for an alternative to the current implementation of npov is the signed pov fork. So at [[is pie good?]] you get a pov-ambiguation page, that contains a wiktionary-like entry, that redirects you to the various takes on the subject, like this:
--- Is pie good? is an age old question for bakeries. [[is pie good? (Bill's take)|Bill's take]] concludes that pie is good [[is pie good? (Bob's take)|Bob's take]] argues that pie is bad ---
And in the individual articles, bill and bob get to represent their indvidual views and arguments independently. The advantage being, that each view is given the opportunity to make a coherent argument: I can read bill's take, and I can read bob's take, and decide for myself which one of them is more credible.
This would practically resolve the problem of increasing editor density, that is, multiple editors with opposing convictions editing the same article, turning it into an unreadable mess. With 'signed', pov-forked articles, individual editors or pov factions can express them coherently if they show to be incompatible with each other.
On 8/8/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
And in the individual articles, bill and bob get to represent their indvidual views and arguments independently. The advantage being, that each view is given the opportunity to make a coherent argument: I can read bill's take, and I can read bob's take, and decide for myself which one of them is more credible.
That's the extremely optimistic view. In reality, all bob supporters go to the bob page, and the bill supporters go to bill's page, and both pages end up containing masses of unsupported hero worship and being useless to anyone.
There's no reason not to explain both sets of arguments on the one page. Your argument was a bit flawed in that you were contrasting "Bill thinks pie is good" (one page model) with "bill gets to present his individual views" (multiple page model). That's not a real comparison.
Steve
On 8/8/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
"Don't be a POV dick"
I mean, it's not that hard. Don't be an asshole.
No, it's much more than that. There are plenty of ways of violating NPOV in good faith. You may have simply left out a viewpoint you didn't know about, or let your own world experience (such as living in a certain country) distort the perceptions present in the article.
Steve
On 08/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
"Don't be a POV dick" I mean, it's not that hard. Don't be an asshole.
No, it's much more than that. There are plenty of ways of violating NPOV in good faith. You may have simply left out a viewpoint you didn't know about, or let your own world experience (such as living in a certain country) distort the perceptions present in the article.
Yep. It's easy to start on, but you do get less worse with practice.
And the Cunctator is, of course, right: it's an ideal, a compass to follow - you never get there.
- d.
Then other people can insert it.
Maybe I'm the only one that can tell when any article is biased?
On 8/8/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
"Don't be a POV dick"
I mean, it's not that hard. Don't be an asshole.
No, it's much more than that. There are plenty of ways of violating NPOV in good faith. You may have simply left out a viewpoint you didn't know about, or let your own world experience (such as living in a certain country) distort the perceptions present in the article.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 08/08/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I'm the only one that can tell when any article is biased?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MPOV
;-p
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
The press concentrate on the wiki method and editability as the most amazing thing about Wikipedia.
But I think NPOV is possibly a more important innovation. Other sources aim to explain the view they hold or to be authoritative; NPOV describes the views and has whatever authority that confers.
I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance: Explain NPOV in a sentence.
"Teach the controversy."
On 8/8/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Aug 7, 2006, at 10:40 PM, SPUI wrote:
Explain NPOV in a sentence.
"Teach the controversy."
Outstanding!
"Teach the controversy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy is the name of a campaign and strategy fashioned by the [[Discovery Institute]] for teaching creationism in schools. Perhaps not quite the image we want to associate with. :-)
Sarah
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 08:11:25 -0500 Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
"Teach the controversy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy is the name of a campaign and strategy fashioned by the [[Discovery Institute]] for teaching creationism in schools. Perhaps not quite the image we want to associate with. :-)
Sarah
But isn't that exactly what NPOV is about? Wikipedia is NOT a public school...
On Aug 8, 2006, at 7:16 AM, Dabljuh wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 08:11:25 -0500 Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
"Teach the controversy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy is the name of a campaign and strategy fashioned by the [[Discovery Institute]] for teaching creationism in schools. Perhaps not quite the image we want to associate with. :-)
Sarah
But isn't that exactly what NPOV is about? Wikipedia is NOT a public school...
I think we are always going to cheat a bit. Flat Earth, Creationism and Holocaust denial are always going to be slighted somewhat.
Fred
On 8/8/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
"Teach the controversy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy is the name of a campaign and strategy fashioned by the [[Discovery Institute]] for teaching creationism in schools. Perhaps not quite the image we want to associate with. :-)
I would have gone more with "Describe the controversy, don't become part of it."
Steve
On 08/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I would have gone more with "Describe the controversy, don't become part of it."
It might be worth someone taking the results of this thread and doing a refactor on WP:NPOV (hitting the talk page, of course, because you can bet there's a lot of watchers). If it's like any other Wikipedia policy/guideline mix page it'll have been instruction-crept out the wazoo.
- d.
On 8/8/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It might be worth someone taking the results of this thread and doing a refactor on WP:NPOV (hitting the talk page, of course, because you can bet there's a lot of watchers). If it's like any other Wikipedia policy/guideline mix page it'll have been instruction-crept out the wazoo.
Yes, ironically NPOV is actually a disaster for Wikipedia policy pages. It's exactly what we *don't* want: a description of disagreement over policy, but no firm statement that we all agree to accept.
WP:NOT has some classic examples, especially in how it rules "glossaries" in but "lists of definitions" out. This apparently satisfies everyone - if you write a list of definitions, WP:NOT lets you keep it. If you hate someone's glossary, WP:NOT justifies your deleting it. (and yes, I deliberately swapped those over).
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/8/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
"Teach the controversy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy is the name of a campaign and strategy fashioned by the [[Discovery Institute]] for teaching creationism in schools. Perhaps not quite the image we want to associate with. :-)
I would have gone more with "Describe the controversy, don't become part of it."
That would be too passive. Teaching the controversy requires a greater effort to understand what your opponents are saying to the extent that you would be able to give an eloquent defence of the opposing point of view.
Ec
On Aug 8, 2006, at 7:11 AM, Sarah wrote:
"Teach the controversy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy is the name of a campaign and strategy fashioned by the [[Discovery Institute]] for teaching creationism in schools. Perhaps not quite the image we want to associate with. :-)
Sarah
Heh, definitely a related matter. Points of view that are nonsense but a lot of people believe in them and campaign vigorously for them.
Fred
On 08/08/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 7:11 AM, Sarah wrote:
"Teach the controversy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy is the name of a campaign and strategy fashioned by the [[Discovery Institute]] for teaching creationism in schools. Perhaps not quite the image we want to associate with. :-)
Heh, definitely a related matter. Points of view that are nonsense but a lot of people believe in them and campaign vigorously for them.
Oh, definitely. Creationism is a good example - politically and socially important, but not necessarily relevant in any given article about science.
- d.
On Aug 8, 2006, at 9:11 AM, Sarah wrote:
On 8/8/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Aug 7, 2006, at 10:40 PM, SPUI wrote:
Explain NPOV in a sentence.
"Teach the controversy."
Outstanding!
"Teach the controversy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy is the name of a campaign and strategy fashioned by the [[Discovery Institute]] for teaching creationism in schools. Perhaps not quite the image we want to associate with. :-)
The Discovery Institute was actually ripping off of Gerald Graff, however, and the phrase is tremendously respected within humanities instruction. (I hear it several times each time new TA orientation rolls around) And the article is kind of hopelessly borked in focusing on the Discovery Institute over Graff.
The problem is that Graff's phrase isn't exactly what we want. Graff's vision of teaching the conflict (Which is the actual phrase as it's most often heard) is in many ways much more radical than we want to be. At its heart, Graff is dealing with a more epistemological approach, and with interpretation of facts. We are dealing with basic presentation of facts. Graff's view would be better described as teaching multiple SPOVs.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
Sarah wrote:
On 8/8/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Aug 7, 2006, at 10:40 PM, SPUI wrote:
Explain NPOV in a sentence.
"Teach the controversy."
Outstanding!
"Teach the controversy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy is the name of a campaign and strategy fashioned by the [[Discovery Institute]] for teaching creationism in schools. Perhaps not quite the image we want to associate with. :-)
The appropriation of a maxim by a group with a very specific Point of View should not mean that they have received exclusive rights to the use of the term. I could as easily see it applying to a completely opposing perspective.
Ec
On 8/8/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Aug 7, 2006, at 10:40 PM, SPUI wrote:
Explain NPOV in a sentence.
"Teach the controversy."
Outstanding!
That presupposes there's a controversy. Or a legitimate controversy.
Wikipedia has, and naturally should, a strong bias towards verifiable information.
On 08/08/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Aug 7, 2006, at 10:40 PM, SPUI wrote:
Explain NPOV in a sentence.
"Teach the controversy."
Outstanding!
That presupposes there's a controversy. Or a legitimate controversy. Wikipedia has, and naturally should, a strong bias towards verifiable information.
"Teach the controversy, if its existence can be verified." This is already enforceable using verifiability, to find *notable* critical opinions to describe. It works okay.
- d.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 10:16:05 -0400 "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has, and naturally should, a strong bias towards verifiable information.
Here I disagree. When someone reads anything on Wikipedia that goes against social consensus (the mainstream view, if you want), increasingly, the first reaction is to go "Oh Wikipedia's got it wrong!"
In a way, that's good - Wikipedia has got it wrong a lot of the time and people should change it. But then there's the cases - and they're frequent - where the mainstream opinion is terribly wrong because of various reasons, and people fight "The Truth (tm)" vigorously.
Consider the regrowth of neurons - only ten years ago, the scientific consensus was that neurons would not regrow in adults. Now we have pretty hard scientific proof that this is simply wrong. There was never any hard proof for the traditional view - according to the portrayal of a neurologist - this traditional view was simply asserted by a single individual at a time without evidence and, rather unscientifically, accepted by the scientific community and transported to popular media where it became mainstream 'knowledge'.
Yet the article on neurons reads as if new evidence was challenging old and acting all controversial on the subject - I have little doubt that this is because of WP's bias towards mainstream ignorance rather than towards scientific knowledge. A neurologist changing the article would soon to be bullied out of Wikipedia for "pushing his POV..."
In science, the single most important sentence you can ever use or hear is this one: "We don't know!" and the second most important "We were wrong" But the mainstream doesn't work like that: People want absolute answers for everything, even if they're completely fabricated (read the bible for further info)
I disagree with a certain interpretation of NPOV that basically says that the mainstream view should be viewed as the right POV. The only POV that can claim to be the rightest of all, is the one that is supported by most of the evidence - not the number of people who believe it. I would go as far as promoting a "scientific point of view" in favor of NPOV.
And to imply Wikipedia had a bias in favor of scientific opinion instead of popular, is simply delusional tbh.
On 8/8/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 10:16:05 -0400 "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has, and naturally should, a strong bias towards verifiable information.
Here I disagree. When someone reads anything on Wikipedia that goes against social consensus (the mainstream view, if you want), increasingly, the first reaction is to go "Oh Wikipedia's got it wrong!"
[snip]
I disagree with a certain interpretation of NPOV that basically says that the mainstream view should be viewed as the right POV. The only POV that can claim to be the rightest of all, is the one that is supported by most of the evidence - not the number of people who believe it. I would go as far as promoting a "scientific point of view" in favor of NPOV.
And to imply Wikipedia had a bias in favor of scientific opinion instead of popular, is simply delusional tbh.
I'm not sure how you think you're disagreeing with me. I wrote:
"Wikipedia has, and naturally should, a strong bias towards verifiable information."
You wrote:
"The only POV that can claim to be the rightest of all, is the one that is supported by most of the evidence - not the number of people who believe it."
Verifiability flows from evidence.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:52:50 -0400 "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Verifiability flows from evidence.
Right right - but you say WP would have a bias towards verifiable information. That is just wrong - WP has not a bias towards verifiable information, but towards mainstream ignorance.
Dabljuh wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:52:50 -0400 "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Verifiability flows from evidence.
Right right - but you say WP would have a bias towards verifiable information. That is just wrong - WP has not a bias towards verifiable information, but towards mainstream ignorance.
...and your continued trolling is helping HOW, exactly?
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:39:39 +0930 "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
...and your continued trolling is helping HOW, exactly?
... Same back to you?
Maybe you're one of the people that go "If I ignore the problem hard enough, its gonna go away..."
Since your statement appears to imply that you want constructive suggestions, here's one.
Give WP:NPOV a "facts override" clause. That is, if something is a simple and verifiable fact, npov is not meant to relativate it when a majority of people are misinformed or simply don't like the information.
Right now: Neurologist tries to change the neuron article so it says neurons regenerate (although slower with increasing age) and explains the dated myth as such. Then he gets bullied into leaving Wikipedia for "pushing his pov".
With facts override: Neurologist succeeds, and ignorant idiots get their asses kicked.
On 8/9/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:39:39 +0930 "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
...and your continued trolling is helping HOW, exactly?
... Same back to you?
Maybe you're one of the people that go "If I ignore the problem hard enough, its gonna go away..."
Since your statement appears to imply that you want constructive suggestions, here's one.
Give WP:NPOV a "facts override" clause. That is, if something is a simple and verifiable fact, npov is not meant to relativate it when a majority of people are misinformed or simply don't like the information.
Right now: Neurologist tries to change the neuron article so it says neurons regenerate (although slower with increasing age) and explains the dated myth as such. Then he gets bullied into leaving Wikipedia for "pushing his pov".
With facts override: Neurologist succeeds, and ignorant idiots get their asses kicked.
That's exactly what every crackpot who has discovered "The TRUTH" insists; they have the real facts, and all the reliable sources, scientific studies, and peer reviewed articles in the world are simply the work of "ignorant idiots". And that's exactly the viewpoint that got you banned from Wikipedia; you didn't care what the policies said, or what reliable sources said, because you knew "The TRUTH", and everyone else was simply ignorant.
Jay.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 13:55:51 -0400 jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
That's exactly what every crackpot who has discovered "The TRUTH" insists; they have the real facts, and all the reliable sources, scientific studies, and peer reviewed articles in the world are simply the work of "ignorant idiots". And that's exactly the viewpoint that got you banned from Wikipedia; you didn't care what the policies said, or what reliable sources said, because you knew "The TRUTH", and everyone else was simply ignorant.
Jay.
Er, yeah.
Read again:
Give WP:NPOV a "facts override" clause. That is, if something is a simple and verifiable fact, npov is not meant to relativate it when a majority of people are misinformed or simply don't like the information.
I said verifiable (which also implies reliable sources)
So you're saying... WP's priority is to be neutral rather than factual? Are you... Hmm... I see, that explains a couple of things.
On 8/9/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 13:55:51 -0400 jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
That's exactly what every crackpot who has discovered "The TRUTH" insists; they have the real facts, and all the reliable sources, scientific studies, and peer reviewed articles in the world are simply the work of "ignorant idiots". And that's exactly the viewpoint that got you banned from Wikipedia; you didn't care what the policies said, or what reliable sources said, because you knew "The TRUTH", and everyone else was simply ignorant.
Jay.
Er, yeah.
Read again:
Give WP:NPOV a "facts override" clause. That is, if something is a simple and verifiable fact, npov is not meant to relativate it when a majority of people are misinformed or simply don't like the information.
I said verifiable (which also implies reliable sources)
The last time you argued for "simple and verifiable fact", they were of the "everybody knows it's true" and "it's obvious" sort, but not the kind that could actually be found in any reliable sources.
So you're saying... WP's priority is to be neutral rather than factual? Are you... Hmm... I see, that explains a couple of things.
So you're saying... your priority is to invent strawman arguments for me rather than address the issues? Are you... Hmm... I see, that explains a couple of things.
Jay.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 14:24:33 -0400 jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
The last time you argued for "simple and verifiable fact", they were of the "everybody knows it's true" and "it's obvious" sort, but not the kind that could actually be found in any reliable sources.
"The foreskin is erogenous" ?
Actually that can be found in reliable sources.
So you're saying... WP's priority is to be neutral rather than factual? Are you... Hmm... I see, that explains a couple of things.
So you're saying... your priority is to invent strawman arguments for me rather than address the issues? Are you... Hmm... I see, that explains a couple of things.
Actually I meant to be ad hominem, like you were and still are. Let me try again:
"Adress the issues"? I can't change that you don't like facts.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dabljuh stated for the record:
Actually I meant to be ad hominem ....
Would the list admins please ban (or at least moderate) this troll?
- -- Sean Barrett | These go to eleven. It's one louder, isn't sean@epoptic.com | it? It's not ten. --Nigel of Spinal Tap
Sean Barrett wrote:
Dabljuh stated for the record:
Actually I meant to be ad hominem ....
Would the list admins please ban (or at least moderate) this troll?
Only if you complain directly. Like so...
I mean... isn't FACTS exactly what is speaking against the relevant points of view of crackpots?
Treating crackpot ideas neutrally just because they're verifiable... I just plainly don't like that.
On 8/9/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
Since your statement appears to imply that you want constructive suggestions, here's one.
Give WP:NPOV a "facts override" clause. That is, if something is a simple and verifiable fact, npov is not meant to relativate it when a majority of people are misinformed or simply don't like the information.
Sounds dangerous. But can you explain it in a bit more detail? My concern is that most of the time when people think that NPOV already works that way, it's because they want to objectively define truth at Wikipedia or something. Leading to "X said XX. Y said YY. But actually they're both wrong, the TRUTH is Z!"
I think we could go so far as to give more weight to scientific opinions, but "facts override" just sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Steve
Dabljuh wrote: <snip>
Since your statement appears to imply that you want constructive suggestions, here's one.
Give WP:NPOV a "facts override" clause. That is, if something is a simple and verifiable fact, npov is not meant to relativate it when a majority of people are misinformed or simply don't like the information.
All attempts to determine the Truth instead of the NPOV are predestined to be complete failures for the simple reason that the Truth is a construct of the mind and as such necessarily subjective. -- Loom91's First Law
Wikipedia is not the venue for negotiating ultimate truth nor the secret history of the world. They have Usenet for that. -- Geogre's Law
Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. -- Andjam's first law
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Dabljuh wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:52:50 -0400 "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Verifiability flows from evidence.
Right right - but you say WP would have a bias towards verifiable information. That is just wrong - WP has not a bias towards verifiable information, but towards mainstream ignorance.
...and your continued trolling is helping HOW, exactly?
Not at all. Don't underestimate the powerful force that ignorance can exert on the collecttive mind.
Ec
My crack at it:
Wikipedian NPOV consists of describing human knowledge and opinion about a subject in a manner that all such is contained, which a honest adventurer would be likely to encounter, if he encompassed the world and all humanity in his travels discarding none but the views of the feeble-minded and incoherent.
--- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
[Something funny, but cumbersome.]
Nice try, though. Crack et moi: (Ill maybe try for humour later.)
Wikipedia's NPOV policy is a re-codification of philosophical objectivity * (as found in professional journalism and encyclopediae), which stands as the unique permanent principle which governs all purpose, process, and working culture therein.
~ ga sp ~
* or "objectivism"[sic]
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/9/06, Dabljuh dabljuh@gmx.net wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:52:50 -0400 "The Cunctator" cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Verifiability flows from evidence.
Right right - but you say WP would have a bias towards verifiable information. That is just wrong - WP has not a bias towards verifiable information, but towards mainstream ignorance.
I meant as WP is intended, not necessarily in practice. However, principles like citing sources and forbidding original research do point articles in the direction of verifiable information.
The bias toward verifiable information may be weak, but it's there.
On 10/08/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I meant as WP is intended, not necessarily in practice. However, principles like citing sources and forbidding original research do point articles in the direction of verifiable information. The bias toward verifiable information may be weak, but it's there.
My laptop has a file containing the complete and neutral encyclopedia, in all languages. It's called /dev/random. It takes a while to read the whole thing, and some would complain about its standard of usefulness.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
The press concentrate on the wiki method and editability as the most amazing thing about Wikipedia.
But I think NPOV is possibly a more important innovation. Other sources aim to explain the view they hold or to be authoritative; NPOV describes the views and has whatever authority that confers.
I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance: Explain NPOV in a sentence.
<snip>
Raul's Razor - An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie.
- Raul's 13th law.