Significant material is sometimes excluded from some articles on the
grounds of undue weight. Can someone clarify whether the policy on
NPOV Undue weight is being misinterpreted, and if so, whether it can
be clarified?
NPOV Undue weight states:
* "... the article should fairly represent all significant
viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each". See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Point_of_View#Undue_weight
But if the perceived prominence is very low, the proportion is
rounded down to zero, and material excluded, regardless of the
significance? The policy goes on to say:
* "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or
to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape
of the dispute."
In other words, the mere mention of a significant-minority view may
be misleading, not whether we write that text in a neutral point of view?
But I also note from the NPOV tutorial:
* Editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject
in an unfair way [.. by] Entirely omitting significant citable
information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it
is claimed to be not credible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
I have examples of material being excluded from several articles on
the grounds of Undue weight, though the material is peer-reviewed,
citable and verifiable. In some cases, there are dozens of citations.
The result is that anonymous and accountable editors may by
consensus, completely exclude verifiable material from credible,
career scientists; yet "Consensus should not trump
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV>NPOV (or any other official
policy)" See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
Shouldn't we be open and inclusive, so that "Readers are left to form
their own opinions" [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Point_of_View ]
I'd like to see a clarification that significant minority views, in
which prominent adherences can be verified (eg. as peer-reviewed
authors), should not be excluded from an article on the grounds of
undue weight; their views may be summarised, though detailed in an
article of their own.
Examples on request.
Regards,
Ian Tresman