It's time that I pipe up on this.
Under the subject header, Re: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal At 06:30 PM 5/8/2009, Sam Korn wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:24 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: [...] 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.
Actually, no, though it's the community that can help, and the Committee can only have some influence. There is no way for the Committee, as far as I can see, to enforce what is needed, but it could recognize it and encourage it and discriminate between disruption that maintains lack of consensus and disruption that increases consensus.
The key to understanding this is, first of all, that NPOV isn't a thing, a fixed state, a property of text in itself, it is a balance that represents consensus.
We can measure NPOV by the percentage of editors who agree with a text, and our goal should always be 100%. While we may, in controversial areas, never be able to reach 100%, we should always maintain some level of skepticism that text is truly neutral if there is even a single dissent from a responsible editor. We may have overlooked something, and, if that editor can find *any* support from other responsible editors, we should, as a community (which may require only one of us initially), examine the reasons for dissent and see if it is possible to address them and either convince the dissenting editors to support the text or, if we become convinced that the text can be improved to broaden consensus, implement that change.
I have written a draft essay that examines this, and a process that could be followed, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abd/NPOV_and_how_to_find_it
Comments, here or on the essay Talk page are invited. The draft at this point is written from a personal POV, but my intention is to edit that out and to leave a citation behind to the original essay from history, so edits to the essay to improve it and make it general and not personal are also invited. TIA.
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abd@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
It's time that I pipe up on this.
Under the subject header, Re: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal At 06:30 PM 5/8/2009, Sam Korn wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:24 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: [...] 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.
Actually, no, though it's the community that can help, and the Committee can only have some influence. There is no way for the Committee, as far as I can see, to enforce what is needed, but it could recognize it and encourage it and discriminate between disruption that maintains lack of consensus and disruption that increases consensus.
I meant that resolving the meatspace Israel-Palestine conflict is beyond the capabilities of the Committee.
The key to understanding this is, first of all, that NPOV isn't a thing, a fixed state, a property of text in itself, it is a balance that represents consensus.
No. NPOV is not determined by consensus. Wikipedia's content is determined by consensus with NPOV being the guiding principle. Something does not become more neutral because fifteen Wikipedia editors say it's neutral.
We can measure NPOV by the percentage of editors who agree with a text, and our goal should always be 100%.
No. The mere fact that no-one complains that their point of view is under-represented does not mean that it isn't.
It is no more possible to create neutrality by public vote than it is [[wikiality|to create reality by public vote]].
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com
No. NPOV is not determined by consensus. Wikipedia's content is determined by consensus with NPOV being the guiding principle. Something does not become more neutral because fifteen Wikipedia editors say it's neutral.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Korn" smoddy@gmail.com
No. NPOV is not determined by consensus. Wikipedia's content is determined by consensus with NPOV being the guiding principle. Something does not become more neutral because fifteen Wikipedia editors say it's neutral.
-- Sam
True - the existence of a consensus supporting the text does not prove that the text is neutral. However, it is a good indication, particular if the raters come from a cross section of the community rather than just from those who edit the particular pages.
But of course. The agreement of the editors testifies to its neutrality; it does not define it.
What the original poster (I can't remember who that was!) seemed to be saying was "NPOV is what consensus says it is". That is backwards and plain wrong.