I hope I'm adding to the signal, & not to the noise, of this discussion with my contribution.
One problem I see in this discussion about the individual in question is that he/she has found a serious weakness in the rule concerning NPOV. If one were to submit to Wikipedia a comment like "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is considered the finest musical piece written" or "Tolstoy's two novels _War and Peace_ and _Anna Karinina_ are considered his best writings", one could insist that this is not a valid submission -- even though these are judgements that are widely held and considered by many people statements of fact, rather than opinion. And even conceding the point that they are opinions, it would not be that hard to find justification for this opinion, along the lines of "Orson Welles' 'Citizen Kane' was voted the best motion picture by the American Film Institute."
I'm punting on that last example -- I don't know if that is what they agreed to, but I hope all of you see what I am trying to explain: a given group who is considered authoritative in a given field, makes a judgement. And that judgement is recorded in Wikipedia as a fact.
However, all that does in move the problem of subjectivity to another area: how do we then determine if the authority cited is truly authoritative? What if some troll insists on countering the reasonable example I made above about "Citizen Kane" with her/his own citation, "Joe Blow considers 'Manos, the Hands of Fate' to be the best motion picture ever made"?
We could avoid this problem entirely by refusing to state that any given work or object is considered by anyone to be the "best", "most influential", "best known", et cetera, of its classification. However, this runs headlong into another problem, which I would argue is equally important: by doing so, we contributors cannot acknowledge the existence of certain opinions, either widely-held, or the result of informed, educated discussion. Ignoring the fact, for example, that certain authors of literature belong in a "canon" and should be taught in schools because of their skill with language, ability of perception, or influence of ideas, means that Wikipedia abdicates helping a user decide if, as an example, V. C. Andrews should be considered the equal of Homer, Tolstoy or Virginia Wolf. Making a statement such as, "The UNIX operating system is favored by programmers because of its many tools and its successful abstraction of system resources as files" then becomes impossible and prohibited. And the same with a statement like "Although newcomers are often daunted by the long periods of overcast skies and long rainstorms, native Oregonians apparently take this weather in stride."
I don't have an answer to help Wikipedia out of this dilemma. All I can do in this email is point to it, ask that everyone acknowledges that it is a problem that needs solving, & hope that we can discuss this as adults.
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
If one were to submit to Wikipedia a comment like "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is considered the finest musical piece written" or "Tolstoy's two novels _War and Peace_ and _Anna Karinina_ are considered his best writings", one could insist that this is not a valid submission -- even though these are judgements that are widely held and considered by many people statements of fact, rather than opinion.
Consider three alternatives:
BAD: "Orson Welles' [[Citizen Kane]] is the best motion picture ever made."
BETTER: "Orson Welles' [[Citizen Kane]] is considered by many experts to be the the best motion picture ever made."
STILL BETTER: "Orson Welles' [[Citizen Kane]] is considered by many experts to be the best motion picture ever made. For example, in 1998, the [[American Film Institute]] voted..."
Notice that I didn't say "Best" because there's likely always going to be a possible improvement. :-)
to explain: a given group who is considered authoritative in a given field, makes a judgement. And that judgement is recorded in Wikipedia as a fact.
There's an important distinction here between saying that a particular judgment is _true_, i.e. for the wikipedia to actualy _assert_ it, versus saying that a particular judgment is widely held, or widely held by experts, or held by these experts but not those.
It's important and informational to include judgments that are widely held, but not to assert them ourselves. If the reader thinks that *we* are asserting it, well, they aren't reading carefully enough.
However, all that does in move the problem of subjectivity to another area: how do we then determine if the authority cited is truly authoritative?
We just use judgment and good sense. It's not hard.
People "these days" are often very concerned about answering the hardcore skeptic or relativist. I'm not. We can use judgment and good sense, and let the postmodernists deconstruct how many angels aren't dancing on a pinhead.
What if some troll insists on countering the reasonable example I made above about "Citizen Kane" with her/his own citation, "Joe Blow considers 'Manos, the Hands of Fate' to be the best motion picture ever made"?
Is Joe Blow widely considered to be an expert? Probably not.
I don't have an answer to help Wikipedia out of this dilemma. All I can do in this email is point to it, ask that everyone acknowledges that it is a problem that needs solving, & hope that we can discuss this as adults.
I don't think any solution is needed, because I don't see the problem.
Joe Blow's opinions on films are not encyclopedic. The votes of the American Film Institute are.
Maybe this will help: "encyclopedic" is not necessarily the same thing as "true". Every statement that is encyclopedic should be true, but not every true statement belongs in an encyclopedia.
--Jimbo