Hoi,
No point in automating NPOV, we are not at a point where we can. Where we
are is a point where we can collect all sources used to prove a point, any
point. We are at a point where we can indicate what sources are used to
prove or disprove any given point.
Now a NPOV does not mean that facts can be denied because "a" source says
something is a fact. There is plenty of literature where facts are plain
untrue and when this is a given, a source cannot be used. This mechanism to
validate sources in a bigger context is what I propose.
The facts will fall as they may. However calling the Croations names is
only justified when it is justified.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 23:45, 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:
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(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>