NPOV. Neutral Point Of View. It sounds so good. But does it work? I doubt it. At least, I doubt whether it works in the way it is now used on Wikipedia.
Suppose I believe that the Earth is not round but cube-shaped. And I have arguments for it. So I put these on [[Earth]]. Next someone else comes, and says that that's bollocks. He adds all kids of arguments on why the Earth is really a sphere, and arguments against mine. Then I put arguments against his. And soon we spend most of the Earth page discussing arguments for and against a cubical Earth. Is that really the way to go?
To be honest, I don't know whether I believe in NPOV. Or ever did. It sounds very good in theory. In practice, it does not seem to work. At least not for me. Let me state that differently - it works for some things, not for others. I am perfectly happy to give pro and contra views when discussing political or ethical topics. But when I talk about scientifical subjects, I go with the mainstream scientific point of view.
Actually, my problems may lay deeper. A cubic Earth I can refute. But what if someone claims that Siberia had a tropical climate until 4000 years ago? It sounds like nonsense to me, but I cannot give the arguments against it. I can probably find out what the general idea is about the climate of Siberia 4000 years ago, but on what information this is based I do not know. So should we just let such a claim with its arguments stand, and add "however, generally it is assumed that Siberia 4000 years ago was as cold or even somewhat colder than now"?
What is the solution? I do not know. Maybe we should try to find more people of established nature, not to write articles, but just to rate them. Maybe we should be less unhappy to delete material on pages, or even start pages all over at times. Maybe there's no problem at all, and it is me who is wrong. Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't know. What I do know is that I find working on Wikipedia a rather irritating thing to do lately. And irritation is not what one expects to get from a hobby.
At WikipediaNL they have asked me why I suddenly left. There you have it.
Goodbye(?)
Andre Engels
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 01:48:09PM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
NPOV. Neutral Point Of View. It sounds so good. But does it work? I doubt it. At least, I doubt whether it works in the way it is now used on Wikipedia.
Suppose I believe that the Earth is not round but cube-shaped. And I have arguments for it. So I put these on [[Earth]]. Next someone else comes, and says that that's bollocks. He adds all kids of arguments on why the Earth is really a sphere, and arguments against mine. Then I put arguments against his. And soon we spend most of the Earth page discussing arguments for and against a cubical Earth. Is that really the way to go?
I'm nothing. I hardly exist. But anyway IMHO the article should look like:
Earth
Earth is a round place where we have the fun. (external links: http://www.nasa.gov/)
----------------------------
Other sources state that it's flat and rests on four turtles. (see references: http://flat.example.com/)
----------------------------
The Bowlists believe in that Earth is of the shape of a bowl, and we are the rice in it. (http://www.bowl/)
Three independent views, no connection.
I do not see any reason to have arguments. Maybe it is flat. We have enough bits to list all opinions which have some basis to exist. If there are no real support (any referenced facts or people supporting) behind a stupidity^Wweird idea then its submitter could be Talk'ed out of it. (One-man ideas probably doesn't worth listing, but if the Bowlists Association [15 billions of members] does believe in something then it could be listed. (Maybe on 'Earth (Bowl)', that's beyond my foretelling.)
To be honest, I don't know whether I believe in NPOV. Or ever did. It sounds very good in theory. In practice, it does not seem to work. At least not for
I've seen beautiful articles as an example. Most of the political hotspots (arabs, jews, war, etc) try to be neutral, and some of them does it pretty well. IMHO.
years ago, but on what information this is based I do not know.
That would probably help deciding whether to revert such informations. No source - no reason to keep. ["If life would be THAT easy!" -- Woody Allan]
Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't know. What I do know is that I find working on Wikipedia a rather irritating thing to do lately. And irritation is not what one expects to get from a hobby.
Interaction with people equals irritation. Maybe if we could get rid of them...
Bests, Peter
Another pov about Earth.
Put sound on, at least it could sooth you perhaps
http://membres.lycos.fr/spiritualitequebec/gaia.htm
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Andre-
Suppose I believe that the Earth is not round but cube-shaped. And I have arguments for it. So I put these on [[Earth]]. Next someone else comes, and says that that's bollocks. He adds all kids of arguments on why the Earth is really a sphere, and arguments against mine. Then I put arguments against his. And soon we spend most of the Earth page discussing arguments for and against a cubical Earth. Is that really the way to go?
Sure. And when this takes up a substantial portion of the [[Earth]] article, someone will complain on [[Talk:Earth]] that this is a fringe theory, held only by very few persons, and in accordance with [[NPOV]] should probably be moved to [[Cubical Earth]]. We already do have [[Flat Earth]] and [[Flat Earth Society]], by the way, and I rather like it. :-)
We have managed to deal with historical revisionism regarding the Holocaust, we have managed to deal with fringe philosophical views, and so on. I see no reason why NPOV should not be scalable. People are smart. They know when to split up stuff, remove arguments which are obviously bogus etc.
Actually, my problems may lay deeper. A cubic Earth I can refute. But what if someone claims that Siberia had a tropical climate until 4000 years ago?
Evidence? Studies? References? Is this just their opinion? Then delete it. Can they provide references to authorities who have actually made that claim? Then discuss it together with other studies on the subject. Nobody on Wikipedia knows about the subject to refute it? Then it will possibly be wrong until someone who does comes along and fixes it. Big deal.
If you want an encyclopedia that is carefully checked not to contain idiosyncratic, unchecked material, the Sifter project is for you. I predict that this will be up and running in less than a year.
Regards,
Erik
Andre Engels engels@uni-koblenz.de writes:
What is the solution?
There is none -- and that's probably okay. Take a break and read Thomas Mann's Joseph triology ;-)
Yes, of course it's okay to wipe out stupid texts from the wikipedia -- no need to discuss matters which are just plain wrong. But if you are not sure either look up the subject in a library or just leave it as is.
Or add an comment to the talk page.
At WikipediaNL they have asked me why I suddenly left. There you have it.
There is nothing wrong with doing other things that might make you happy; some time in the future I'll leave the project because I don't like the loosy file format :)
Andre Engels wrote:
NPOV. Neutral Point Of View. It sounds so good. But does it work? I doubt it. At least, I doubt whether it works in the way it is now used on Wikipedia.
Suppose I believe that the Earth is not round but cube-shaped. And I have arguments for it. So I put these on [[Earth]]. Next someone else comes, and says that that's bollocks. He adds all kids of arguments on why the Earth is really a sphere, and arguments against mine. Then I put arguments against his. And soon we spend most of the Earth page discussing arguments for and against a cubical Earth. Is that really the way to go?
To be honest, I don't know whether I believe in NPOV. Or ever did. It sounds very good in theory. In practice, it does not seem to work. At least not for me. Let me state that differently - it works for some things, not for others. I am perfectly happy to give pro and contra views when discussing political or ethical topics. But when I talk about scientifical subjects, I go with the mainstream scientific point of view.
Actually, my problems may lay deeper. A cubic Earth I can refute. But what if someone claims that Siberia had a tropical climate until 4000 years ago? It sounds like nonsense to me, but I cannot give the arguments against it. I can probably find out what the general idea is about the climate of Siberia 4000 years ago, but on what information this is based I do not know. So should we just let such a claim with its arguments stand, and add "however, generally it is assumed that Siberia 4000 years ago was as cold or even somewhat colder than now"?
What is the solution? I do not know. Maybe we should try to find more people of established nature, not to write articles, but just to rate them. Maybe we should be less unhappy to delete material on pages, or even start pages all over at times. Maybe there's no problem at all, and it is me who is wrong. Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't know. What I do know is that I find working on Wikipedia a rather irritating thing to do lately. And irritation is not what one expects to get from a hobby.
At WikipediaNL they have asked me why I suddenly left. There you have it.
Goodbye(?)
Andre Engels
I must say, you have some good points
Andre Engels wrote:
NPOV. Neutral Point Of View. It sounds so good. But does it work? I doubt it. At least, I doubt whether it works in the way it is now used on Wikipedia.
Suppose I believe that the Earth is not round but cube-shaped. And I have arguments for it. So I put these on [[Earth]]. Next someone else comes, and says that that's bollocks. He adds all kids of arguments on why the Earth is really a sphere, and arguments against mine. Then I put arguments against his. And soon we spend most of the Earth page discussing arguments for and against a cubical Earth. Is that really the way to go?
Yes! That's the proof that it works. The cubical Earth argument may be a straw man in the absence of supporters, but an inspired scientist needs to allow for the possibility of such a thing, however improbable. There is no limit to the number of strange ideas that dwell in the gar reaches of our probability space. The strongest adherent of the scientific method admits and accepts that no scientific hypothesis is absolutely true. He does not feel threatened by the emergence of some bizarre theory, and is probably more effective in his refutations by allowing for the possibility of a new and perhaps unlikely hypothesis. Crying "pseudoscience" can only lose arguments, not win them; it brings out supporters that were never there before in the same way that it happens when some Wikipedian is called a vandal.
To be honest, I don't know whether I believe in NPOV. Or ever did. It sounds very good in theory. In practice, it does not seem to work. At least not for me. Let me state that differently - it works for some things, not for others. I am perfectly happy to give pro and contra views when discussing political or ethical topics. But when I talk about scientifical subjects, I go with the mainstream scientific point of view.
I believe that it must apply to everything, including science. The test of whether free speech is working is in how it treats unpopular subjects and views. Supporters of a majoritarian POV have a tendency to depend on the unproven hypothesis that the mainstream view is necessarily correct. I think that the scientific method needs to be applied recursively. I also support the view that the burden of ''prima facie'' proof lies with the proponent of an improbable theory. This is not a very high burden, but it doesn't accomplish a lot either. It at least deals with those virtual hypotheses that spring purely from one individual's imagination.
Actually, my problems may lay deeper. A cubic Earth I can refute. But what if someone claims that Siberia had a tropical climate until 4000 years ago? It sounds like nonsense to me, but I cannot give the arguments against it. I can probably find out what the general idea is about the climate of Siberia 4000 years ago, but on what information this is based I do not know. So should we just let such a claim with its arguments stand, and add "however, generally it is assumed that Siberia 4000 years ago was as cold or even somewhat colder than now"?
The tropical Siberia hypothesis is likely more probable than the cubic Earth hypothesis, and that makes it more difficult. The proponent puts forth his arguments, and you express your contrary arguments. If you have put your arguments well, you shouldn't need to add anything further. You need to trust the reader to make the right decision. There is no obligation to win any argument.. A Zen approach is far more rewarding.
Another thing that happens with science is the feeling that you need to defend ALL of science. If your area of expertise is in astrophysics, why should you need to defend the views of climatologists. By getting into an unfamiliar scientific discipline you can end up with your foot in your mouth, promoting more arguments and feeling very very frustrated.
What is the solution? I do not know. Maybe we should try to find more people of established nature, not to write articles, but just to rate them. Maybe we should be less unhappy to delete material on pages, or even start pages all over at times. Maybe there's no problem at all, and it is me who is wrong. Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't know. What I do know is that I find working on Wikipedia a rather irritating thing to do lately. And irritation is not what one expects to get from a hobby.
That there is no problem does not make you wrong; that argument is a ''non-sequitur". There is no magic wand solution; finding it could be fatal to the project. If you feel you have put your views fairly on a subject, and you still feel irritated by the reactions of others it's a sign that, at least in the near future, your time would be better spent on some other subject.
Ec
Eclecticology wrote in part:
The strongest adherent of the scientific method admits and accepts that no scientific hypothesis is absolutely true. He does not feel threatened by the emergence of some bizarre theory, and is probably more effective in his refutations by allowing for the possibility of a new and perhaps unlikely hypothesis.
In defence of the poor scientist-in-real-life, he (or she) may not feel /threatened/ by bizarre theories, but he often feels /exhausted/ from constantly refuting them, and even /annoyed/ when called upon to refute (IHO) really stupid ones. But I think that our NPOV method can still deal with this.
In the cube example, we don't allow anything with no supporters (that falls under Wikipedia's ban on original research), and we don't feel the need to refute things with no arguments (it's enough to state the fact that the position is a fringe one). Then once the arguments for the cubical Earth are presented, we only have to lay out the counter-arguments once, there in the article. If the counter-counter-arguments etc get to be too long, then we simply spin things off into [[Cubical Earth]]. People that don't want to deal with this inane crackpot nonsense can rightly point its adherents to that article.
-- Toby
--- Andre Engels engels@uni-koblenz.de wrote:
Maybe we should be less unhappy to delete material on pages, or even start pages all over at times.
I don't think we should be unhappy at all about deleting, radically rewriting and refactoring material. Cancerous growth is nice and all, but every once in a while a surgeon's knife is needed.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org