JAY JG wrote:
Wikipedia couldn't possibly represent ALL views, nor
should it. There
are 6 billion people in the world, each with their own
view on a
limitless array of topics. Even if we limit ourselves to
the much
smaller (though still overwhelming) number of views that
are, say,
published on websites, NPOV does not demand that we say
"according to
Einstein e=mc^2, but according to my Aunt Gertie [www.relativityaccordingtogertie.com], e=mc^3"
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).
Shane replied, quoting from [[WP:NPOV]]
... ...So while we don't necessarily have to give Gertie a spot besides Einstein, the NPOV policy says that: a) We only give Einstein more space in the main article because his view is more popular, not because it's more credible; and b) Gertie can (and should) be given space if someone's willing to write the article.
I am sure that this was never the purpose of the NPOV policy; it seems to me that the concerns Jay related were behind the original insertion of this paragraph. This paragraph was meant to limit material on and by cranks.
Now that may seem ridiculous to you, but that's what the policy page says! If that's not actually what we want to be doing, then we should change the policy, not ignore it.
I agree. A literal reading of this section can be taken out of context and misued in this way.
It seems to me Wikipedia has a whole lot of policy that if you read it closely doesn't describe how things are actually done at all. I want to fix that: either by getting people to follow the policy, or getting the policy changed.
That is fine by me. We should subtly rewrite this section of the NPOV article to take into account Jay's concerns; we should use some of the very language he used in his letter here.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Robert wrote:
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.
Let me repeat again: this is a terrible misinterpretation of the policy as it is currently written.
If there needs to be a clarification somehow, then there needs to be a clarification. But I find it all quite clear as it is.
--Jimbo
Robert wrote:
JAY JG wrote:
Wikipedia couldn't possibly represent ALL views, nor should it. There
are 6 billion people in the world, each with their own view on a
limitless array of topics. Even if we limit ourselves to the much
smaller (though still overwhelming) number of views that are, say,
published on websites, NPOV does not demand that we say "according to
Einstein e=mc^2, but according to my Aunt Gertie [www.relativityaccordingtogertie.com], e=mc^3"
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).
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. ~~~~
Ray Saintonge wrote
Nobody is supporting "a massive repository of crank view" Saying that Wikipedia would become so is entirely speculative.
Agreed. My view that nonsense is gradually squeezed out of WP, by steady edits by sensible editors. It is, in the main, a salami-slicing operation.
Obviously something daft gets posted every day, and there are occasions when editors dig in their heels to defend what are, on a consensus view, cranky views. I don't think either of those facts need be used to undermine the position that the normal process - 'enough eyeballs' - works.
The bad history and politicised rants can be first toned down, then replaced by better points. There is always going to be some 'placeholder' material on WP, waiting for a better job. I think trying for credibility in excess of the natural trend is probably a mistake. The pages have a disclaimer; and I wonder whether anyone can foresee a time when they will not.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote
Nobody is supporting "a massive repository of crank view" Saying that Wikipedia would become so is entirely speculative.
Agreed. My view that nonsense is gradually squeezed out of WP, by steady edits by sensible editors. It is, in the main, a salami-slicing operation.
Obviously something daft gets posted every day, and there are occasions when editors dig in their heels to defend what are, on a consensus view, cranky views. I don't think either of those facts need be used to undermine the position that the normal process - 'enough eyeballs' - works.
When it comes to cranky views, the most effective refutations can often be made with a minimum of words. Lengthy and detailed arguments in opposition are often counterproductive in that they leave the impression that there must be something there worth aguing about.
The bad history and politicised rants can be first toned down, then replaced by better points. There is always going to be some 'placeholder' material on WP, waiting for a better job. I think trying for credibility in excess of the natural trend is probably a mistake. The pages have a disclaimer; and I wonder whether anyone can foresee a time when they will not.
It will never happen. In articles touching on medical subjects in particular there will always be individuals ready to take our "advice" literally and uncritically. These same ones will be just as ready to blame Wikipedia when the "advice" doesn't work.
Ec