Robert wrote:
I had written:
>I totally agree with Jay's point.
Wikipedia will
>immediately lose any credibility it has if it becomes a
>massive repository of crank views, which it will be if
>people strictly follow the letter of the NPOV policy as
>currently written. Articles on and by cranks will
>outnumber serious issues a hundred to one (at least).
>
>
Ray Saintonge responded:
Nobody is supporting "a massive repository of
crank view"
Saying that Wikipedia would become so is entirely
speculative. There is no evidence for this nor for
the hypothetical loss of credibility. ~~~~
For goodness sake, that is a strawman argument. You know
full well that NO ONE claimed that Wikipedia should be
turned into "a massive repository of crank view". I
certainly made no such claim.
Rather, I was pointing out the well-known fact that many
Wikipedia articles constantly are being altered to include
fringe and singular point-of-views. On an open Wiki-project
such as this, the NPOV policy has been abused by many
people to try and give the views of tiny groups the
appearance of having the same level of acceptance as views
held by much larger groups. Haven't you read Jimbo's posts
on this issue? In any case, it is a *fact* that this is
one of the many reasons why many people outside of
Wikipedia do not trust us yet. Your dismissal of their
concerns does not make them non-existent.
If you had intended your argument to be a strawman argument you should
have attached a smiley to it. Now that you have indicated that you were
not being serious I can apologize for responding as though you were.
The expression "massive repository of crank views" was yours, and it
seemed as though you were lounging in idle speculation.
Knowledge is not democratic and the fact that a point of view is held by
a majority is not in itself enough to make it true. NPOV policy is just
as often abused by majoritarian storm-troopers who fear being knocked
from their intellectual sinecures. Nowhere have I argued that cranks
are anything but cranks. Neither have I ever argued that they should
have unrestrained access to air their views in any and all
circumstances. The "previous publication" alone is objective enough and
adequate to keep such concepts from spinning out of control. That rule
can and should be applied without any regard to the nature of the views
expressed. If the contributor gets past that hurdle, a simple paragraph
expressing the general level of disbelief about the matter is
sufficient. If you have undermined the fundamental idea being presented
it becomes pointless to argue about every derivative idea; those are all
GIGO arguments which become very tedious and annoying to the reader.
Let the reader be forwarned, and allow him to read for humour without
wading through piles of henpecking troll food.
Yes I have read Jimbo's posts on the matter, and I respectfully disagree
with him; with you I simply disagree. So what? In the midst of your
paragraph you ask that question in isolation, and go on with another
comment. It seems that you intend more by that question than just a
simple "Yes" or "No" answer.
I certainly didn't deny that people have certain concerns, I merely
questioned the basis for those concerns. You as an alleged scientist
have made certain statements about the lack of trust that outsiders have
in Wikipedia. A real scientist would give evidence.
Ray continues:
I agree that that article is dreadful. To begin
with it is
sprinkled throughout with with words like "supposed" or
"alleged" which if repeated tend to bias the commentary,
and certainly detract from the flow of the text.
Sorry, Ray, but NPOV policy demands that all unproven
and/or unfounded claims must be phrased in this way. We
don't write about unproven phenomenon (sic!) like ESP and alien
abuductions as facts; we may only write that "Person X
claims that they were abducted by aliens, who them examined
them with ESP. The alleged experience happened in a
cornfield in Iowa in 1977." We do not write about such
unproven and extraodrinary claims as if they were facts.
So where does it say that these terms need to be repeated ad nauseam? A
single insertion of "The advocates claim ..." can be applied to whole
paragraphs or multiple paragraphs at the same time. That makes them far
more readable.
Your concatenation of two sparate subjects is deceitful. As one who
happens to consider only one of the to be credible, I see that lumping
them together is just another one of your strawman arguments. Your
preposterous claim is designed to make the more acceptable concept less
credible
For some time now you have been claiming to accept
NPOV,
yet at every opportunity you effectively subvert it. Please
recognize this, and desist.
Supporting NPOV does not imply bowing to pretend scientists.
Ec