I have "adopted" Lir as a mentee, because I believe she really wants to contribute. Please join me in gently (or firmly) coaching her about Wikipedia standards such as naming convention, NPOV, etc.
Lir's current standards are just as valid as the so called "community standards". Her persistance in applying these standards could be seen as her attempt to coach all other Wikipedia users to adapt to her naming conventions and POV.
Just because a viewset is shared by the majority, no matter how overwhelming that majority, the majority has no authority over the dissenting individual.
--TMC
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:17:31AM -0800, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
Just because a viewset is shared by the majority, no matter how overwhelming that majority, the majority has no authority over the dissenting individual.
wikipedia, though, is fundamentally a community based on certain shared views. Somebody who doesn't share the most fundamental views of a community can't be a productive member of that community. (Views that you don't have to share to be a productive member are, by definition, not fundamental views. Groups of people that don't share fundamental views aren't communities)
Anybody who wants to be in a community of different values can start a new one.
--- Jason Williams jason@jasonandali.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:17:31AM -0800, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
Just because a viewset is shared by the majority, no matter how overwhelming that majority, the majority has no authority over the dissenting individual.
wikipedia, though, is fundamentally a community based on certain shared views. Somebody who doesn't share the most fundamental views of a community can't be a productive member of that community. (Views that you don't have to share to be a productive member are, by definition, not fundamental views. Groups of people that don't share fundamental views aren't communities)
Anybody who wants to be in a community of different values can start a new one.
Unfortunately that is not the case if Wikipedia still clings to the notion that it would cover human knowledge. The only requirement for that is to be humans. Tigers and whales can set up their "Tigers and Whales" encyclopedia.
To deny access to wikipedia who do not conform to 20th century western academic standards would deny, oh, roughly, 90% of the human race from participating. In which case, it would not be an encyclopedia of the human knowledge, but rather a wanna-be encyclopedia with only 10% of human knowledge.
It's sort of like saying: all persons have inalieanble rights yet only citizens have access to lawyers free of charge. Pretty silly huh?
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Christopher Mahan wrote:
Khendon wrote:
Anybody who wants to be in a community of different values can start a new one.
Unfortunately that is not the case if Wikipedia still clings to the notion that it would cover human knowledge. The only requirement for that is to be humans. Tigers and whales can set up their "Tigers and Whales" encyclopedia.
No, what you should say is: That is not the case if Wikipedia clings *only* to the notion that it will cover human knowledge. But it *also* clings to certain other notions, such as NPOV. POV writers can set up theire POV encyclopaedia.
To deny access to wikipedia who do not conform to 20th century western academic standards would deny, oh, roughly, 90% of the human race from participating.
Right, which is why Wikipedia (unlike Nupedia) has no such limits.
It's sort of like saying: all persons have inalieanble rights yet only citizens have access to lawyers free of charge. Pretty silly huh?
Yes, pretty silly. You have my support in national politics. But that's a situation with no analogy here.
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
No, what you should say is: That is not the case if Wikipedia clings *only* to the notion that it will cover human knowledge. But it *also* clings to certain other notions, such as NPOV. POV writers can set up theire POV encyclopaedia.
By definition, if it includes all human knowledge, it will be NPOV, and if it does not, it will be POV.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Christopher Mahan wrote:
By definition, if it includes all human knowledge, it will be NPOV, and if it does not, it will be POV.
This is not what the neutral point of view is.
In fact, anything that includes *all* of human knowledge must be POV. For example, I believe that George W. Bush is an awful US President, my belief is justified, and it is correct (as it so happens ^_^). Therefore, I *know* that George W. Bush is an awful US President. But it wouldn't be NPOV of me to state this in a Wikipedia article (although I might attribute the opinion to certain people, explaining their reasons for their belief and presenting rebuttals from Bush's supporters). Thus Wikipedia will always lack that bit of human knowledge.
See [[en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] for more.
-- Toby
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 22:57, Toby Bartels wrote:
Christopher Mahan wrote:
By definition, if it includes all human knowledge, it will be NPOV, and if it does not, it will be POV.
This is not what the neutral point of view is.
In fact, anything that includes *all* of human knowledge must be POV.
Yup. I would much rather the official Wikipedia definition of neutral point of view actually gibe with the meaning of "neutral point of view" (see [[m:NPOV is an ideal]]) than the convoluted redefinition that stands now.
In other words, I'm with Mr. Mahan here.
The Cunctator wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
In fact, anything that includes *all* of human knowledge must be POV.
Yup. I would much rather the official Wikipedia definition of neutral point of view actually gibe with the meaning of "neutral point of view" (see [[m:NPOV is an ideal]]) than the convoluted redefinition that stands now.
Hum, I pretty much agree with that Meta-Wikipedia article, but I don't see how the *definition* of NPOV is at fault. No article will ever perfectly satisfy the current definition, which is therefore an ideal, and I don't see any proposal for replacing that definition.
Surely you don't want Wikipedia to state as fact that George W. Bush is an awful US President! But if it doesn't, then it won't contain that piece of knowledge; it will at best only contain the knowledge that certain people hold that view for certain reasons. (Well, it might contain that piece of knowledge for a little while, but that would surely be quickly replaced by a more NPOV version, as we strive ever more for the elusive NPOV ideal.)
-- Toby
On 11/21/02 2:35 AM, "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
In fact, anything that includes *all* of human knowledge must be POV.
Yup. I would much rather the official Wikipedia definition of neutral point of view actually gibe with the meaning of "neutral point of view" (see [[m:NPOV is an ideal]]) than the convoluted redefinition that stands now.
Hum, I pretty much agree with that Meta-Wikipedia article, but I don't see how the *definition* of NPOV is at fault. No article will ever perfectly satisfy the current definition, which is therefore an ideal, and I don't see any proposal for replacing that definition.
That's what "NPOV is an ideal" is.
Surely you don't want Wikipedia to state as fact that George W. Bush is an awful US President! But if it doesn't, then it won't contain that piece of knowledge; it will at best only contain the knowledge that certain people hold that view for certain reasons. (Well, it might contain that piece of knowledge for a little while, but that would surely be quickly replaced by a more NPOV version, as we strive ever more for the elusive NPOV ideal.)
Exactly.
The Cunctator wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Hum, I pretty much agree with that Meta-Wikipedia article, but I don't see how the *definition* of NPOV is at fault. No article will ever perfectly satisfy the current definition, which is therefore an ideal, and I don't see any proposal for replacing that definition.
That's what "NPOV is an ideal" is.
What's what "NPOV is an ideal" is? A definition? "an ideal" isn't a definition.
Surely you don't want Wikipedia to state as fact that George W. Bush is an awful US President! But if it doesn't, then it won't contain that piece of knowledge; it will at best only contain the knowledge that certain people hold that view for certain reasons. (Well, it might contain that piece of knowledge for a little while, but that would surely be quickly replaced by a more NPOV version, as we strive ever more for the elusive NPOV ideal.)
Exactly.
OK, so again we seem to agree on NPOV -- except that I can't see where this contradicts the definition on [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. I mean, I get *everything* (it seems), and basically agree, except the idea that it has to do with any *definition*.
I press because I do want to understand you, and I sense that you have a point in using that word. Please, define "neutral point of view".
(Or tell me where on meta or something this has happened before. I can't find any extensive discussion involving you now, but I'm sure that some must be preserved somewhere.)
-- Toby
On 11/22/02 3:26 AM, "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Hum, I pretty much agree with that Meta-Wikipedia article, but I don't see how the *definition* of NPOV is at fault. No article will ever perfectly satisfy the current definition, which is therefore an ideal, and I don't see any proposal for replacing that definition.
That's what "NPOV is an ideal" is.
What's what "NPOV is an ideal" is? A definition? "an ideal" isn't a definition.
I'm referring to the meta article, not the statement.
Surely you don't want Wikipedia to state as fact that George W. Bush is an awful US President! But if it doesn't, then it won't contain that piece of knowledge; it will at best only contain the knowledge that certain people hold that view for certain reasons. (Well, it might contain that piece of knowledge for a little while, but that would surely be quickly replaced by a more NPOV version, as we strive ever more for the elusive NPOV ideal.)
Exactly.
OK, so again we seem to agree on NPOV -- except that I can't see where this contradicts the definition on [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. I mean, I get *everything* (it seems), and basically agree, except the idea that it has to do with any *definition*.
I press because I do want to understand you, and I sense that you have a point in using that word. Please, define "neutral point of view".
(Or tell me where on meta or something this has happened before. I can't find any extensive discussion involving you now, but I'm sure that some must be preserved somewhere.)
I'd rather start with how "neutral point of view" is defined on Wikipedia proper: as presenting conflicting extremes. The lengthy article there repeated presents neutral or unbiased writing in terms of conflicting viewpoints. Framing knowledge in terms of conflict is not the best way to do it. It can be a helpful starting point, but a more complete synthesis is desired (and should be possible).
And statements like this: "according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or carefully but subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct" are just wrong.
And the distinction between "facts" and "opinions", as written, is just not helpful. "Mars is a planet", where "planet" is a "massive object that orbits the Sun" has only been a "fact" for a few hundred years. "God exists" has been a "fact" for much longer than that.
The whole page could be greatly improved and shortened by stating that the NPOV relies on evidentiary criteria. That is to say, all statements are assertions which rely on some form of evidence and definition, both of which should be explicated somewhere, preferably within Wikipedia itself (though primary sources should simply be referenced).
The Cunctator wrote:
I'd rather start with how "neutral point of view" is defined on Wikipedia proper: as presenting conflicting extremes. The lengthy article there repeated presents neutral or unbiased writing in terms of conflicting viewpoints. Framing knowledge in terms of conflict is not the best way to do it. It can be a helpful starting point, but a more complete synthesis is desired (and should be possible).
And statements like this: "according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or carefully but subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct" are just wrong.
And the distinction between "facts" and "opinions", as written, is just not helpful. "Mars is a planet", where "planet" is a "massive object that orbits the Sun" has only been a "fact" for a few hundred years. "God exists" has been a "fact" for much longer than that.
The whole page could be greatly improved and shortened by stating that the NPOV relies on evidentiary criteria. That is to say, all statements are assertions which rely on some form of evidence and definition, both of which should be explicated somewhere, preferably within Wikipedia itself (though primary sources should simply be referenced).
I've just looked at the "NPOV" page, and it seems to me that NPOV needs to be applied recursively. It makes statements that support reliance on experts without any guidelines about how we can determine when experts are a big part of the problem Expert opinion is still just opinion. The article includes the following "FAQ" type of discussion:
10.4 But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numercial majorities of its followers to force their views on the anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occured, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.
Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to completely repugnant views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from representing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the repugnant views; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many decent people feel toward them; and so forth.
Hence, on the one hand, Wikipedia does not officially take a stand even on such obvious issues, but on the other, it will not look as though we (the authors of Wikipedia) had accorded equal credibility to morally repugnant views. Given that the authors of Wikipedia represent a rough cross-section of the educated public, our readers can expect us to have a similar cross-section of opinion about extremism: most of us abhor it.
This seems to start with a controversy about science and ends up in moral repugnance over holocaust denial. Is the implication here that pseudo-science is not just false but morally repugnant as well? I find the term "pseudo-science" itself to fail NPOV. The prefix "pseudo-" means false. That puts any person defending a practice that has been put under that rubric in the untenable position of supporting a self-contradictory characterization. When you get to that, the factuality of the practice is irrelevant. The dogma of falsifiability in discussions about scientific method almost appears designed to maximize confusion.
Scientific method is asymptotic to truth, and I would also extend that assertion to NPOV. That a particular view is held by a significant majority (either of the general public or of experts) does not magically convert that opinion into fact. Scientific method very fairly allows for the possibility that eccentric views may ultimately be found valid; nevertheless, these allowances only represent distant hopes. Poker players are not dealt royal flushes very frequently.
Eclecticology
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Jason Williams jason@jasonandali.org.uk wrote:
Unfortunately that is not the case if Wikipedia still clings to the notion that it would cover human knowledge. The only requirement for that is to be humans. Tigers and whales can set up their "Tigers and Whales" encyclopedia.
Try putting some emphasis on *knowledge* as well...
To deny access to wikipedia who do not conform to 20th century western academic standards would deny, oh, roughly, 90% of the human race from participating. In which case, it would not be an encyclopedia of the human knowledge, but rather a wanna-be encyclopedia with only 10% of human knowledge.
"The earth is flat" is not human knowledge. "Some people believe the earth is flat" is. If 90% of the human race don't know the diameter of earth, it will suffice to write down that knowledge of the 10% remaining. It could also be mentioned that most people don't know the diameter of earth, but their not-knowing (or assuming something wrong) is *not* knowledge in itself, and can therefore not be counted.
It's sort of like saying: all persons have inalieanble rights yet only citizens have access to lawyers free of charge. Pretty silly huh?
Your comparison, yes.
Magnus
--- Jason Williams jason@jasonandali.org.uk wrote:
Unfortunately that is not the case if Wikipedia still clings to the
I don't want to be picky, but could we be more careful with attributions? I didn't say that - it is in fact the opposite of my view.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org