On 2/19/2012 8:19 AM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:12:09 -0300
> From: Sarah<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
> To:mnemonic@gmail.com, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia
> (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions
> Message-ID:
> <CAM4=keLJS_1-tRdFruVXzzA48dJAzB0wgmK+ArCaLf_oDnxyJQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwin<mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Jussi-ville writes:
>> >
>>>> >>> The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding
>>>> >>> information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view. ...
>>> >>
>> >
>> > I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a
>> > must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn
>> > what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original
>> > Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years
>> > until the article was actually published before trying to modify the
>> > Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case
>> > because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for
>> > Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent
>> > academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular
>> > sources we rely on never undergo.
>> >
>> > I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy
>> > itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy.
>> >
>> >
>> > --Mike
> I agree. It's the way UNDUE is written that is problematic, and it has
> led, for years, to significant-minority viewpoints being excluded --
> on the grounds that the views are not sufficiently well-represented by
> reliable sources; or that the reliable sources, even if peer-reviewed,
> belong to the wrong field.
>
> Sarah
>
The origin of these policies in theoretical physics is mind boggling -
how can you stretch something that applies to unproven theoretical
entries to also apply to real world facts?
To claim that a subject is inconsequential, advertising or not important
as a basis for killing a new entry is a BIG reason why_new contributors
are so discouraged_ that they go away rather than deal with the
obstacles to making a new entry stay active and be available for others
to add to in the future. The learning curve is steep enough without
someone telling you your efforts aren't wanted.
I've fought several of these battles with pig headed editors who claim
that a new factual or biographical entry isn't important enough to be
accepted. Sometimes it is easy to refute them, but they often ignore
evidence based in brick & mortar publications of a reputable nature.
For example - lookup "virtual valley" on Wikipedia. The closest result
currently up is "Metro Silicon Valley", which is related. However the
editor who killed the virtual valley entry did not bother to find this
entry (and perhaps suggest they be merged). Instead that person claimed
it was blatant advertising and could not be bothered to look at
historical evidence online and elsewhere to the contrary. I lost that
time - and it put such a bad tase in my mouth that I haven't troubled
myself to spend any more time trying to publish anything on Wikipedia.
Who won?
