When the BADSITES movement first started, I hoped that time would show that it was a policy which was fundamentally incompatible with NPOV. Time did just that, and after MakingLights and MichaelMoore, I think there's a pretty clear understanding that, in the case of notable subjects, BADSITES and NPOV can't coexist. This is what I had hoped people would eventually see.
What I never even fathomed, however, was that some people, when faced with a conflict between NPOV and BADSITES, would argue that NPOV is the one that has to go!
------
So, for example, not to pick on Fred, but he seems to be in this camp. Let's assume, as we must, that he wouldn't REALLY have had us redirect Michael Moore to Clown. I'm still puzzled as to what his stance is when he says :
Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.
How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?
Not at all. That's why it needs to be out in the open.
Fred further explains,"I did not suggest it or support it. I am only noting what we did. And that the community supports it"
It stills seems like Fred's basic understanding of the BADSITES situation is:
1. BADSITES (and its ilk) demand deletion of all links to harassment. 2. Michael Moore was a harasser, his link should have been deleted. 3. But, overwhelming consensus demanded, in spite of policy, that the link still be included. When asked what he learned from the Michael Moore experience, Fred said he learned,"If a powerful leftwing celebrity attacks a rightwing Wikipedia editor on his website, his supporters on Wikipedia should be able, as a practical matter, to prevent removal of links to his site." and "sometimes the bad guys win". 4. NPOV means that all the rules SHOULD be applied equally to everyone. 5. But since prominent subjects will have enough supporters to overturn BADSITES in some cases, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." This isn't consistent with NPOV, but be may as well make it explicit.
It just seems like any way you slice it, NPOV and BADSITES don't get along. What shocks me, however, is that even among people who appear to recognize this, I don' see any loss of support for BADSITES. Instead, it seems like there's a grudging acceptance that NPOV is going to have to be bent a little to accomodate the more important goal of BADSITES.
Am I right? I'm totally reading tea leaves here when I summarize what I think Fred's POV is. (fred, please correct my errors).
But that's the impression I'm left with, after reading the discussion. If NPOV is non-negotiable, why is its application under negotiation? And if a policy or principle comes down which isn't consistent with NPOV-- which one should govern?
Alec
I think it's more down to the issue of "what is consensus". As usual it's a myth that these issues are being decided by consensus on Wikipedia, as there are two camps, even if one is far larger than the other.
I'm not suggesting we should be paralysed by seeking consensus, but rather recognise that consensus isn't achievable in many cases, and stop pretending - i.e. formalise a decision-making procedure in such circumstances (majority - not very workable either, authority - not very workable and open to bias, strength of arguments - who decides). As you may surmise, I don't have a suggestion of how we solve the problem - I'd just like to see the pretence of "consensus" scrapped - because at the minute, where consensus becomes unworkable, people stick their heads in the sand, randomly use whatever decision-making means they can, and then declare there to be consensus.
It's just not workable deciding on policy the way we are at the moment. Policy should pretty much be set in stone and only tweaked occasionally by some sane formalised means.
Zoney
On 16/10/2007, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's more down to the issue of "what is consensus". As usual it's a myth that these issues are being decided by consensus on Wikipedia, as there are two camps, even if one is far larger than the other.
The people pushing BADSITES are not fond of consensus and don't really get it.
e.g. the WP:ATT debacle. It utterly failed consensus, but they still think they wuz robbed.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 16/10/2007, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's more down to the issue of "what is consensus". As usual it's a myth that these issues are being decided by consensus on Wikipedia, as there are two camps, even if one is far larger than the other.
The people pushing BADSITES are not fond of consensus and don't really get it.
e.g. the WP:ATT debacle. It utterly failed consensus, but they still think they wuz robbed.
Just like the immortal Mrs. Slocombe each is unanimous in his views.
Ec
Zoney wrote:
I think it's more down to the issue of "what is consensus". As usual it's a myth that these issues are being decided by consensus on Wikipedia, as there are two camps, even if one is far larger than the other.
And of course, the larger camp doesn't always "win".
An outstanding feature of on-line communities is that there are relatively few enforcement mechanisms, and thus relatively higher levels of anarchy. Back in the glory days of Usenet, people often asked, "What am I allowed to post?", and my answer was always, "You can post whatever you can get away with." And much the same applies to Wikipedia.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. We even enshrine the notion, in a way, by having an actual policy saying it's okay to Ignore All Rules.
But this does certainly mean that it's sometimes possible to make large, significant, and sometimes sweeping changes that don't have consensus. My favorite example is the way spoiler warnings got purged a few months back, not because (it seemed to me) there was consensus for their removal, but simply because removing them was technically easy, and few people complained too much. (But I mention this only for purposes of example; I am not trying to reopen that debate here, now.)
If on Wikipedia you can make whatever edit you can get away with, and if this applies to policy pages as well as article pages, it's a miracle our policies have evolved as cleanly and consistently as they have.
I would encourage anyone who is being bold, and perhaps ignoring some rule, and perhaps flouting the wishes of some large and perhaps consensual group of opposing editors, to carefully question what your real motives are. If you're doing something *you* want, or you *think* some large group of editors want, or you *think* is good for the project, you're at some risk of deluding yourself. If you've got a handful of other editors who agree with you, but people keep accusing you of being part of some cabal, it might just be because you're acting like one.
On 16/10/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
An outstanding feature of on-line communities is that there are relatively few enforcement mechanisms, and thus relatively higher levels of anarchy. Back in the glory days of Usenet, people often asked, "What am I allowed to post?", and my answer was always, "You can post whatever you can get away with." And much the same applies to Wikipedia.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. We even enshrine the notion, in a way, by having an actual policy saying it's okay to Ignore All Rules.
The point is that such a modus operandi isn't what WP:Consensus alleges - even though that document is indeed pretty weaselly with concepts of consensus and explaining how things allegedly work on Wikipedia.
I'm not particularly in favour of operating by proper consensus - I don't think that it would be very workable, but I would like at the very least to see groundrules for the "whatever you can get away with" system (i.e. how things really work most of the time on Wikipedia) that ensure a more level playing field - i.e. the winners are not just the most persistent or enthusiastic or the most supporters (yes, as you say, they aren't necessarily the "winners" if the minority are more persistent).
Zoney
On 10/16/07, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
When the BADSITES movement first started, I hoped that time would show that it was a policy which was fundamentally incompatible with NPOV. Time did just that, and after MakingLights and MichaelMoore, I think there's a pretty clear understanding that, in the case of notable subjects, BADSITES and NPOV can't coexist. This is what I had hoped people would eventually see.
What I never even fathomed, however, was that some people, when faced with a conflict between NPOV and BADSITES, would argue that NPOV is the one that has to go!
So, for example, not to pick on Fred, but he seems to be in this camp. Let's assume, as we must, that he wouldn't REALLY have had us redirect Michael Moore to Clown. I'm still puzzled as to what his stance is when he says :
Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.
How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?
Not at all. That's why it needs to be out in the open.
Fred further explains,"I did not suggest it or support it. I am only noting what we did. And that the community supports it"
It stills seems like Fred's basic understanding of the BADSITES situation is:
- BADSITES (and its ilk) demand deletion of all links to harassment.
- Michael Moore was a harasser, his link should have been deleted.
- But, overwhelming consensus demanded, in spite of policy, that the
link still be included. When asked what he learned from the Michael Moore experience, Fred said he learned,"If a powerful leftwing celebrity attacks a rightwing Wikipedia editor on his website, his supporters on Wikipedia should be able, as a practical matter, to prevent removal of links to his site." and "sometimes the bad guys win". 4. NPOV means that all the rules SHOULD be applied equally to everyone. 5. But since prominent subjects will have enough supporters to overturn BADSITES in some cases, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." This isn't consistent with NPOV, but be may as well make it explicit.
It just seems like any way you slice it, NPOV and BADSITES don't get along. What shocks me, however, is that even among people who appear to recognize this, I don' see any loss of support for BADSITES. Instead, it seems like there's a grudging acceptance that NPOV is going to have to be bent a little to accomodate the more important goal of BADSITES.
Am I right? I'm totally reading tea leaves here when I summarize what I think Fred's POV is. (fred, please correct my errors).
But that's the impression I'm left with, after reading the discussion. If NPOV is non-negotiable, why is its application under negotiation? And if a policy or principle comes down which isn't consistent with NPOV-- which one should govern?
Alec
NPOV is a foundational principle, we're not in a position to override it. The short of it is that there's a single policy one can invoke to override WP:NPOV, and it's WP:FORK.
Cheers, WilyD
On 10/16/07, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking.
How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?
Not at all. That's why it needs to be out in the open.
Fred further explains,"I did not suggest it or support it. I am only noting what we did. And that the community supports it"
It stills seems like Fred's basic understanding of the BADSITES situation is:
<TL;DR/>
If the scenario is such that we must sacrifice either the "neutral encyclopedia" or the "harassment-free editing environment", I think Fred (in his Solomon-like wisdom) is suggesting that the only fair solution might be to sacrifice both.
—C.W.
On 10/16/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
If the scenario is such that we must sacrifice either the "neutral encyclopedia" or the "harassment-free editing environment", I think Fred (in his Solomon-like wisdom) is suggesting that the only fair solution might be to sacrifice both.
I think it may be better to point out that the degree of harrassment-free environment we can realistically expect to provide and enforce is limited, and really always has been though some people thought otherwise.
Would I like to provide Wikipedians a safe nurturing harrassment-free editing environment? Sure. And right after that world peace, and a pony.
I think it may be better to point out that the degree of harrassment-free environment we can realistically expect to provide and enforce is limited, and really always has been though some people thought otherwise.
Ditto for the degree of neutrality, of course.
Alec Conroy wrote:
But that's the impression I'm left with, after reading the discussion. If NPOV is non-negotiable, why is its application under negotiation? And if a policy or principle comes down which isn't consistent with NPOV-- which one should govern?
NPOV should prevail. The recently claimed conflict is with "No Personal Attacks". It's hard to imagine a personal attack that's neutral.
Ec
Quoting Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Alec Conroy wrote:
But that's the impression I'm left with, after reading the discussion. If NPOV is non-negotiable, why is its application under negotiation? And if a policy or principle comes down which isn't consistent with NPOV-- which one should govern?
NPOV should prevail. The recently claimed conflict is with "No Personal Attacks". It's hard to imagine a personal attack that's neutral.
But links themselves don't necessarily violate NPOV. That's part the problem. The conflict is between NPOV and a section of NPA that would allow the removal of links that contain personal attacks even if an NPOV article would have those attacks. If we really believe in NPOV that's problematic.