I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to measure NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow marking them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other type of POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited than the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the honesty and context of using sources.
For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic using equal number of sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can still be quite biased:
"According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But, according to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true, but the true is B."
I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV is very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com napisał(a):
Hoi, I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database with the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that include the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects. When they are a faith, they are our faith.
My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that will bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your favourite project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that undermines Wikipedia as NPOV! Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours? We
should
get started.
I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of facts. At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies. IMO this process works very well. The other depends on opinion, votes, supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty) advocates bring to bear. That process, though adequate, is not as satisfactory.
Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
ready
to go, let it be validated and put to use.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter, et
al
as
the new press barons?
All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making judgments. As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual projects should be the ones to make those judgments. But in some extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com
wrote:
It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this
case
I
think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
applied.
I don't know whether this is the process we want. But if it is, somebody's gotta go first.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe I
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe