Hi Kurt,
This is a perfect topic for intlwiki-l--that's why the list was set up.
I think it would be a good idea to translate parts of the [[neutral point of view]] article, or to write such an article yourself based on that, auf Deutsch. There are many philosophical objections to such a policy, but as far as I can tell, they are all based on misunderstandings or pointless semantic quibbling about the policy. In any case, as a pragmatic matter, it certainly does make it easier for people of radically different viewpoints to work together. It also makes the task of writing an encyclopedia article *considerably* clearer and more focused than it would be otherwise.
We haven't yet really discussed what sort of general policies we can expect non-English Wikipedias to follow. It's not even *completely* obvious to me that anybody ought to try to make sure that they follow a nonbias policy; but, of course, I do think they *should* follow such a policy, self-consciously. That is, I distinguish between policies I think the non-English Wikipedias should self-consciously adopt, and policies that I think we ought, somehow, actually to try to enforce. The latter is likely to be a subset of the former.
I obviously haven't caught up with my recent mail to the point where I can comment on the suggestion that we find some sort of "editors" for the non-English Wikipedias...that would be relevant here...
Larry
On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Kurt Jansson wrote:
Hello everybody!
I think the German Wikipedia is more and more reaching a point, were there are enough people to start discussions about controversial topics. I'm thinking especialy about articles with an esoteric/mystic/religious theme.
Is there some kind of procedure that has been established in the international Wikipedia? Do you stop working on the article and start a discussion? Or do you fight on an article until you come to a consensus (or enough people have given up ;-) )?
I think in scientific articles it is not such a big problem to specify the different opinions and state which one is more and which is less accepted. But I have my problems to declare that ghosts, clairvoyance, etc. do exist/work, or do not, and that both opinions have the same possibility. But maybe that's a just lack of my democratic, pluralistic engagement and an excess of my scientific believing emotions. (BTW: is parascience a science?)
Am I too afraid of fanatic esoterics/christs/etc that are flooding wikipedia with totally biased articles and not willing to discuss about their opinions?
Bye, Kurt
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l