In cases of expert academic POV pushing their efforts remain obvious, but definitely the ante is upped, perhaps beyond our current ability to deal with. However we must develop this capacity or accept a mediocre product. In such fields as Soviet studies (the area I have interest and experience with on Wikipedia) books are written about the state of the discipline and about the orientation of the workers in the field who produce the articles and books. An expert POV pusher will fight to exclude this information or to minimize it.
One must keep in mind that the viewpoint of these academic experts is properly included. What is not within our policy is their insistance that other viewpoints be excluded. Sometimes the alternative viewpoint does not have the authoritative status of a university chair but may nevertheless be substantial. For example, while a professor at Columbia may deny that millions died during the famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s there may also be hundreds of eyewitness accounts and thousands of graves as well as contradictory academic and journalistic authority.
Fred
From: Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 07:58:04 -0500 To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: A Solution to Larry Sanger's Criticisms - Project Has Been Around For A While
On Jan 7, 2005, at 5:49 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Dispute resolution with respect to POV pushers may work if you focus on What Wikipedia is not, the clause about propaganda and advocacy. For evidence you need to show repeated removal of well referenced information which the POV pusher is trying to remove and repeated insertions of poorly or unreferenced information the POV pusher is trying to add
In articles of current interest, there are many poves who are not well informed but have very strongly held opinions, and will fit this profile. The other pove profile however, is that of a person advocating the viewpoint of a particularly group or point of view. It may be the orthodox academic view, or it can range all the way out into the far fringes of fruit loopery. But one can be sure he's got documentation. Lots of it. It's his holy book, and he can quote chapter and verse why you aren't right, and he has websites that repeat, over and over again, basic dogma. They compile references and create arguments for their evangelists.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l