Jimmy Wales wrote:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
And I refuse to write "although most scholars believe Hitler was always a Jew-hater, some people claim that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany first", which is what we'd need to include Helga's theses.
So let someone else write it.
Do you contend that there are not people in the world who have made, and continue to make, these kind of allegations? I personally have seen/heard this kind of stuff from people in North America in person and on the internet.
I think this cuts straight to the heart of how difficult NPOV can be at times.
In _many_ cases, it is easy to get to NPOV by simply "going meta". If something is entirely uncontroversial, we can say 'X'. If it is somewhat controversial, we can say "most scholars say X". But when there is opposition to X but only by lunatics and frauds, it is NOT NPOV to simply "go meta".
I don't think, Michael, that you closely read what Vicki says that she refuses to write. The _reason_ she refuses to write it is that it is not NPOV.
This is not my perception. Nor, apparently, whoever proposed the initial wording.
Getting to NPOV in this case does not involve giving credence to suggestions that Hitler didn't _really_ hate Jews, nor does it involve giving credence to suggestions that Jews started the war with Nazi Germany.
I would agree with this assertion. Credence should not be given to any views, it should be earned in the thought processes of the readers.
What needs to be written about the situation in Germany leading up to World War II is a frank discussion of tensions between Jews and non-Jews, with attention given to the sources of those tensions. This part of the discussion must not be framed in such a way as to suggest that the Holocaust was deserved, etc. But it also need not shy away from a discussion of the reasons that even previously normal people in Germany were swept up in the anti-Jewish venom of the day.
This is distinctly non "NPOV". The Nazi party existed. It had the popular support of one of the most populated and heavily industrialized Democracy of its day. The totality of the material presented should not be selected to support the frame or view that the Holocaust was undeserved.
Similarly, there were legitimate security concerns that lead to U.S. Japanese internment camps. We should present the concerns, the evidence, the surrounding context, the allegations which revolve around the failure to isolate/intern the large U.S. population of German descent, etc. and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. I would even support summaries providing the mainstream conclusion for the mentally lazy reader as long as not all contradictory evidence is excluded. Just as it is insufficient or inappropriate to present only the mainstream credible summaries and then the contradictory evidence it is insuffucient and inappropriate to "summarize" minority views as "crackpots" or "crank" view without presenting any supporting evidence which may exist to substantiate them slightly.
If this approach prevails then the statement: "Once upon a time the Earth was considered flat." would never have mutated from the prevailing consenus of westen authorities and society that "God separated the Earth and Waters from the sky." Notice the second statement is still arguably true although many Scientists contend it was gravity and natural processes, not God, which separated them.
You and I may disagree with the conclusions of the Nazi party that Eugenics and Genocide were appropriate but that does not erase the fact that either millions of Germans believed it or else thousands of German leaders and influential people embraced it supported by a substantial minority or majority of the population. If this NPOV fact provides an impression contradictory to the NPOV summary someone chooses to present then it should be pushed to an appropriate article and linked appropriately as per the consensus of the community in how to best achieve "NPOV, current revision."
"NPOV" will present facts regarding both viewpoints neutrally and allow the reader to decide. Otherwise, an implicit editorial policy has emerged just as "24" alleged it should/would. If this is the case then we need a methodology to establsh editorial policy and criteria.
Mr. Sanger has proposed that we ask a panel of highly respected intellectuals to provide us with *guidance*. Perhaps this *guidance* would also involve editorial policy. If we refuse to abdicate this power then the responsibility for editorial policy remains with either the community consenus or the "owner".
It would be very hard to get to where we want to be starting with Helga's nonsense.
Then our procedures and methodologies need improvement. Our project model, as I understand it, assumes that we can converge on where we want to be, high quality neutral presentation, from chaotic random starts and edits from less than perfect all knowing contributors.
Would you care to hazard a guess regarding how much of Helga's current attitudes result from restricted access to information during her early education or indoctrination?
But the purpose of Wikipedia is not to rescue Helga from her poor education. We need not _morally_ condemn her in order to ask her to stop writing nonsense. We can have all the compassion (and well-meaning condescension) in the world for her plight, and still refuse to put up with it.
Education varies worldwide. Broad, deep, reliable will not be achieved unless our process is robust enough to help our spontaneous contributors overcome limitations in their skills and source materials.
I have little compassion or condescension for "her plight". My concern is with rounding out an effective process to evolve the best material ever available from an online encyclopedia that remains an ever improving best available resource.
This necessarily requires input from more than a restricted, filtered, or "biased" pool of indoctrinated academics or people within the existing western industrial power and economic structures.
I think all views and evidence someone chooses to present belong somewhere in the Wikipedia.
This is NOT our policy, nor has it ever been.
Perhaps it is time for our policy to be updated. As Mr. Sanger is fond of pointing out he was responsible in large part for its formulation. Clearly it has served its purpose in helping initiate the project.
Whether it is of such quality at the current time that it can no longer be improved is a proposition that I assert the community should assess occasionally. Otherwise newcomer's are not involved as peers in our community and have no reason to embrace and assist with extension or completion of our project.
NPOV is more subtle and difficult than this. Wikipedia is not the place for factions to present competing "views". We can _report on_ those views, in an appropriate context, but we must not allow them to distract from our fundamentally _encyclopedic_ mission, which necessarily involves summary and selection.
Selection, censorship or propaganda? If Nazi views can be summarily dismissed as inappropriate or incorrect then there are few modern minorities influential enough to justify NPOV presentation.
If competing views cannot be presented, only reported from the view of the currently dominant faction with claims of being "NPOV" in style of presentation then Wikipedia should drop its pretense of broad and deep. Reliability may also be compromised.
What are your criteria for "appropriate context"? How should these critera be modified or influenced by newcomers to improve their neutrality or suitability for the Wikipedia in the consensus view of the current community? If the answer is agree with the current predefined project standards or go elsewhere then we clearly have:
1. A possibly builtin bias based upon the initial group who arrived and consented to policy prior to the freeze.
2. An inability to improve or broaden our community of participators beyond the initial pool well represented (accidentally) by the current policy and guidelines.
3. No way to correct errors present at the project initialization. We will not be ever converging on the best definition of perfection or neutrality we can devise with the assistance and consensus of the instantaneous community of active contributors; but rather on the best interpretation of the initial policy the community can agree to put up with.
Elsewhere I have suggested that top level NPOV summaries should be contextualized from the mainstream views, as neutrally as practical, with links to additional material or detail for the reader who desires it. Some of which may be presented from an identified viewpoint.
regards, Mike Irwin