In a message dated 4/14/2008 6:33:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm writes:
I don't think there is much support in contempory critical theory for the idea that a writer can write without presenting a point of view, or that a reader can read without a point of view. >>
---------------- We are however, not "writers writing". We are "editors editing". Without this agreement, we won't have a place from which to argue. If you believe you are a writer, an author, a creator of new and interesting expression, then you don't belong on Wikipedia.
Will Johnson
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolcmp00300000002850)
On 14/04/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm writes:
I don't think there is much support in contempory critical theory for the idea that a writer can write without presenting a point of view, or that a reader can read without a point of view. >>
We are however, not "writers writing". We are "editors editing". Without this agreement, we won't have a place from which to argue. If you believe you are a writer, an author, a creator of new and interesting expression, then you don't belong on Wikipedia.
We call our contributors editors, but that name also covers many other roles - fact-checkers and coders and photographers and proofreaders and, yes, writers.
The project absolutely requires people to act as writers; we would be nothing without them. Before we can edit, we must have material *to* edit. We may not wish for the expression of original opinions, but we do need original writing.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/14/2008 6:33:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm writes:
I don't think there is much support in contempory critical theory for the idea that a writer can write without presenting a point of view, or that a reader can read without a point of view. >>
We are however, not "writers writing". We are "editors editing". Without this agreement, we won't have a place from which to argue. If you believe you are a writer, an author, a creator of new and interesting expression, then you don't belong on Wikipedia.
Will Johnson
There is not much support in contemporary critical theory for making that distinction either.
-Phil
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Phil Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/14/2008 6:33:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm writes:
I don't think there is much support in contempory critical theory for the idea that a writer can write without presenting a point of view, or that a reader can read without a point of view. >>
We are however, not "writers writing". We are "editors editing". Without this agreement, we won't have a place from which to argue. If you believe you are a writer, an author, a creator of new and interesting expression, then you don't belong on Wikipedia.
Will Johnson
There is not much support in contemporary critical theory for making that distinction either.
-Phil
There is not much support for contemporary critical theory. Sorry, really cheap shot.
More seriously, we are again arguing over semantics. It is generally accepted that no individual can have a neutral point of view. It is generally recognised when an individual is editing an article to skew the point of view that the article espouses. The idea of having NPOV as a core policy is that we want people's edits to be in line with making a fair attempt to not skew the article towards their own POV too much; that's all.
What actually makes the difference is a question of tone. It's shocking, sometimes, how long the most inappropriate and non-neutral arrangement of facts can last in some articles just because its been presented using a non-judgmental and non-shrill tone.
RR
On 4/14/08, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
There is not much support for contemporary critical theory. Sorry, really cheap shot.
It is a cheap shot, but it's one that I think is important to defend against. The dominant and mainstream academic view on the nature of language and research is heavily informed by contemporary critical theory. How writing is presented on the freshman comp level is informed by contemporary critical theory. I know that the conclusions of contemporary literary theory are less than popular among the techno-libertarian crowd that makes up Wikipedia's core base, but the fact remains - if you want to pursue the goals Wikipedia is trying to pursue, you've gotta pursue them according to the prevailing rules and standards. (Or you've got to admit that you're not - if Wikipedia wants to explicitly repudiate postmodern thinking in its policies it's welcome to.)
More seriously, we are again arguing over semantics. It is generally accepted that no individual can have a neutral point of view. It is generally recognised when an individual is editing an article to skew the point of view that the article espouses. The idea of having NPOV as a core policy is that we want people's edits to be in line with making a fair attempt to not skew the article towards their own POV too much; that's all.
I actually think (and have argued both at conferences and on Wikipedia) that NPOV is more radical than that. NPOV is not just a goal, but an epistemology - it serves to replace the goal of metaphysical or ontological truth with a socially defined truth - presenting a mainstream overview. (In this regard it's much more allied with contemporary critical theory than I think most people realize) The nice thing about a socially defined truth is that it can be more readily checked, especially with a social editing system, since then the method of writing and the standard of evaluation are closely related. Hence our dependence on consensus and discussion.
-Phil
On 14/04/2008, Phil Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I actually think (and have argued both at conferences and on Wikipedia) that NPOV is more radical than that. NPOV is not just a goal, but an epistemology - it serves to replace the goal of metaphysical or ontological truth with a socially defined truth - presenting a mainstream overview. (In this regard it's much more allied with contemporary critical theory than I think most people realize) The nice thing about a socially defined truth is that it can be more readily checked, especially with a social editing system, since then the method of writing and the standard of evaluation are closely related. Hence our dependence on consensus and discussion.
NPOV is Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than letting any idiot edit the website.
- d.
On 4/15/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
NPOV is Wikipedia's greatest innovation - far greater than letting any idiot edit the website.
On the gripping hand, letting any idiot edit the website is the necessity that made it impossible for there ever to be any tenable alternative to NPOV. When every idiot can edit, NPOV is the only way to make it work. Citizendium can have it's narrativist, "engaging" style precisely because they don't let every idiot edit.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I actually think (and have argued both at conferences and on Wikipedia) that NPOV is more radical than that. NPOV is not just a goal, but an epistemology - it serves to replace the goal of metaphysical or ontological truth with a socially defined truth - presenting a mainstream overview. (In this regard it's much more allied with contemporary critical theory than I think most people realize) The nice thing about a socially defined truth is that it can be more readily checked, especially with a social editing system, since then the method of writing and the standard of evaluation are closely related. Hence our dependence on consensus and discussion.
An interesting question then is, to the extent that this is successfully captured in the articles we consider good ones, which is the "mainstream" that we're giving an overview of? In many cases we bias to specific types of sources---for example, supporting scientific sources over theological ones---in ways that a survey of the public at large might not. On the other hand, we don't tilt as strongly towards academic views as some encyclopedias do. I'd suspect that what we're summarizing is in effect the consensus view of the sorts of people who happen to edit Wikipedia in a particular area, which is itself a somewhat biased sample. This becomes particularly clear in certain sub-areas, and in looking at how articles differ across language versions.
-Mark
On 18/04/2008, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
An interesting question then is, to the extent that this is successfully captured in the articles we consider good ones, which is the "mainstream" that we're giving an overview of? In many cases we bias to specific types of sources---for example, supporting scientific sources over theological ones---in ways that a survey of the public at large might not. On the other hand, we don't tilt as strongly towards academic views as some encyclopedias do. I'd suspect that what we're summarizing is in effect the consensus view of the sorts of people who happen to edit Wikipedia in a particular area, which is itself a somewhat biased sample. This becomes particularly clear in certain sub-areas, and in looking at how articles differ across language versions.
Indeed. en:wp's size, and English being the current lingua franca, can actually be helpful in this regard - we get a much wider range of contributors. This sort of thing is a worry for the Chinese Wikipedia - PRC POVs are important to have access to, and now they don't.
- d.
On 18/04/2008, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
... I'd suspect that what we're summarizing is in effect the consensus view of the sorts of people who happen to edit Wikipedia in a particular area, which is itself a somewhat biased sample.
Yes, this is exactly what we are summarizing. We can't expect otherwise. But, because we hold ourselves open for all to edit, we hope that if an article is too biased, an articulate voice will rise up and help bring it back on target.
"Netural point of view" is a socially constructed concept, in that as we make decisions about how to implement it in particular articles, we also define what it means, which in turn affects how we apply it to articles, etc. So both the indivuduals involved in Wikipedia and also random luck (which incidents happen to occur in what order) will affect its meaning. Our use of non-prescriptive, mutable policies expedites this process.
So if I start ten encyclopedias, separated from each other but with similar contributors, and tell them each to make the encylopedia have a "neutral point of view", I expect to see ten different interpretations of what the phrase means. Some might value scientific viewpoints more heavily, others might view "pseudoscience" and science on the same terms. Some might have the neutrality towards animal rights that others on this list have said English Wikipedia doesn't have. I suspect such differences already occur between different Wikipedia projects.
- Carl