Vast majority of sources in controversial topics are usually biased. There
are topics where there is in fact no any non-biased sources. And - coming
back to my previous example, having knowledge how automatic method o bias
measurement works it is very easy to bully it:
"According to unfaithful bastard X [source X1][source X2][source X3] the
true is A. But, according to honorable and widely recognized expert Y
[source Y] A it is not true, but the true is B."
This sentence is quite obviously biased towards B POV, but automatic
measurement of sources will tell you that there is bias towards A POV. And
this is very simple, primitive example of bias. People usually tend to do
it in much more subtle way. Sometimes one short, completely unsourced
sentence at the end of very long article with hundreds of citations can
completely ruin NPOV...
Or imagine that you write article about a bishop - quite naturally most
sources will be religious POV - which does not necessarily mean that the
article is biased as it might contain only basic facts of that person
retrieved from official church sources. Then - following this example - in
Polish Wikipedia - we have probably articles about all living bishops from
major christian denomination. But if you would want to "prove" that Polish
Wikipedia has pro-roman-catholic POV you can easily show that we have 162
articles about roman-catholic Polish bishops and only 12 about orthodox
bishops. And the numbers of citations is more or less probably of the same
proportion. Why? Simply because we have in Poland 162 catholic bishops and
12 orthodox. Wikipedia cannot change it obviously ;-)
czw., 6 gru 2018 o 02:19 Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com> napisał(a):
Yes the method can miss bias. But if the references*
used are* biased, it
would provide clear, objective (though not irrefutable) evidence of a
general bias. The more factual the discussion, the more likely it will be
that any conclusions of the process will be accepted, if not by all at
Croatia WP, then perhaps by some there and by most other observers.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com
wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <dcduring(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
,
<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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
_______________________________________________
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Dennis C. During
_______________________________________________
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>