Neil Harris wrote:
(Name of issue here) is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view... &c.
"'''Evolution''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view."
"The '''theory of relativity''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view."
"The '''heliocentric model of the solar system''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view."
I think that an honest admission, in '' like disambiguation page notices, that the article is not *yet* NPOV is preferable.
-- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia-l@math.ucr.edu
At 07:29 AM 7/27/02 -0700, you wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
(Name of issue here) is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view... &c.
"'''Evolution''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view."
"The '''theory of relativity''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view."
"The '''heliocentric model of the solar system''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view."
I think that an honest admission, in '' like disambiguation page notices, that the article is not *yet* NPOV is preferable.
Also, of course, "'''God''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view", "'''Democracy''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view", and so on for all religious and political topics.
Seriously. Evolution isn't half as controversial as whether Jesus is God.
--- Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote:
At 07:29 AM 7/27/02 -0700, you wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
(Name of issue here) is a [[controversial
issue]], with widely differing
points of view... &c.
"'''Evolution''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view."
"The '''theory of relativity''' is a
[[controversial issue]],
with widely differing points of view."
"The '''heliocentric model of the solar system'''
is a [[controversial
issue]], with widely differing points of view."
I think that an honest admission, in '' like
disambiguation page notices,
that the article is not *yet* NPOV is preferable.
Also, of course, "'''God''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view", "'''Democracy''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view", and so on for all religious and political topics.
Seriously. Evolution isn't half as controversial as whether Jesus is God.
Exactly. I think half the articles in the database could bear that label. We would have to set up a page for the discussion of which topics are controversial enough for the warning, and then the discussion page itself would need to be marked with its own disclaimer. :P
- Stephen G.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
"'''Evolution''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view."
"The '''theory of relativity''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view."
"The '''heliocentric model of the solar system''' is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing points of view."
My idea with the "controversial issue" flag/page-link would be to use it for articles that are still "contested" at Wikipedia. Many articles that in themselves regard controversial issues have been splendidly NPOVed, and wouldn't need to be flagged.
But others, where people bicker back and forth, or where someone still doesn't consider the article to be NPOVed, would benefit from it.
(I'll write a sketch.)
-- Daniel
On 7/27/02 12:15 PM, "Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" daniel@copyleft.no wrote: > My idea with the "controversial issue" flag/page-link would be to use it for
articles that are still "contested" at Wikipedia. Many articles that in themselves regard controversial issues have been splendidly NPOVed, and wouldn't need to be flagged.
But others, where people bicker back and forth, or where someone still doesn't consider the article to be NPOVed, would benefit from it.
This is essentially a non-helpful idea, since the criteria for what is a controversial issue is itself a controversial issue. Better would be to look for objective criteria, such as pages that are edited unusually frequently, or have had multiple massive rewrites, etc.
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, The Cunctator wrote:
This is essentially a non-helpful idea, since the criteria for what is a controversial issue is itself a controversial issue. Better would be to look for objective criteria, such as pages that are edited unusually frequently, or have had multiple massive rewrites, etc.
I disagree. It's not a way of magically removing controversy. It's also not a way of keeping a registry of controversial issues. It's a way to isolating a disagreement into a single flag or link that (in extreme cases) antagonists can flip on or off in a flamewar. Once the article becomes NPOV enough for the people who disagree, the flag can be turned off.
As opposed to massacering the contents of the article again and again. A lightning rod, so to speak.
Yes, articles that shouldn't ble flagged could end up being flagged. But too much skepticism / caution in reading is better than too little. And this is after all a message to the casual reader as much as it is a signal between the authors.
I believe it would helt tremendously to defuse opinion wars (a kind of cease fire).
And on a more personal note: Articles where matters are presented in a fashion I feel strongly is not NPOV (but where the author probably disagrees again - having used facts and reasonable language) tax my motivation to contribute to Wikipedia severly. Yes, it's kind of self centered, but I think it's a very natural and common feeling to be discouraged with the project in its entirety when you come into contact with a flame war you probably don't have the resources to fight (and would also like to avoid, since your expertise lies elsewhere). An easy way of registering your disagreement would be very beneficial in this regard - and importantly, I don't think it would be very destructive from the opposite point of view. If I wrote an article I considered to be very good and also NPOV, and someone marked it as controversial, it would probably annoy me slightly, but I wouldn't feel that my work was going to waste, or that the Wikipedia project was doomed. :) Okay, that was rather drawn out, but you get my point.
The criteria for what is a controversial issue would be simple: That someone who has the effort to spare to edit the article, finds it non-NPOV enough to mark it. Whoever.
-- Daniel
At 09:12 PM 7/27/02 +0200, Daniel wrote:
And on a more personal note: Articles where matters are presented in a
fashion
I feel strongly is not NPOV (but where the author probably disagrees again - having used facts and reasonable language) tax my motivation to contribute to Wikipedia severly. Yes, it's kind of self centered, but I think it's a very natural and common feeling to be discouraged with the project in its entirety when you come into contact with a flame war you probably don't have the resources to fight (and would also like to avoid, since your expertise lies elsewhere).
This phenomenon is a part of internet dynamics; you will be defeated by those who are on wikipedia 16 hours a day and are aggressive. It is discouraging. Even if your expertise lies in this area you still can't win and have a life.
Some issues are simply not addressable from a NPOV. If billions of dollars are being extracted from an activity which kills millions of people there is no way the perpetrators and the victims are going to agree. One thing that saves us now is that except for a few areas e.g. Israel, Palestine, both sides of many controvesies don't have a strong contingent here. But as Wikipedia succeeds that will change.
Fred Bauder
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Fred Bauder wrote:
Some issues are simply not addressable from a NPOV. If billions of dollars are being extracted from an activity which kills millions of people there is no way the perpetrators and the victims are going to agree. One thing that saves us now is that except for a few areas e.g. Israel, Palestine, both sides of many controvesies don't have a strong contingent here. But as Wikipedia succeeds that will change.
(Replying to Fred, but including points from other replies too.)
These are not the issues I'm talking about. I'm talking about the issues that most likely are adressable from a NPOV, but aren't adressed that way today. To remedy such articles is a lot of work, and the controversy flag wouldn't be a replacement for such work. Instead, it would be a civilized way of registering ones position that the article is NPOV - not primarily to the author, but to the audience (the audience doesn't read talk pages).
An earlier poster convinced me that a separate database flag would just be silly, but a standard "controversial flag" page, that certain such articles linked to from one of the first lines - I seriously think that would help.
Also, the existence of such a page, and some links to it, doesn't mean all possible non-NPOV pages at Wikipedia would have to ble tagged, in some giant operation...
So:
* A controversy flag doesn't really impede an article. * It doesn't add work for anyone. * It saves work and time for both sides in a dispute. * It "lightning rods" away undue emotional, immediate rewrites of articles. * It signals to the audience that not everyone on Wikipedia is satisified with the way the particular article is presented. (IMO, very valuable information.) * It would affect a very limited number of articles.
Is it still such a bad idea?
-- Daniel
On 7/27/02 3:12 PM, "Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" daniel@copyleft.no wrote:
And on a more personal note: Articles where matters are presented in a fashion I feel strongly is not NPOV (but where the author probably disagrees again - having used facts and reasonable language) tax my motivation to contribute to Wikipedia severly. Yes, it's kind of self centered, but I think it's a very natural and common feeling to be discouraged with the project in its entirety when you come into contact with a flame war you probably don't have the resources to fight (and would also like to avoid, since your expertise lies elsewhere). An easy way of registering your disagreement would be very beneficial in this regard - and importantly, I don't think it would be very destructive from the opposite point of view. If I wrote an article I considered to be very good and also NPOV, and someone marked it as controversial, it would probably annoy me slightly, but I wouldn't feel that my work was going to waste, or that the Wikipedia project was doomed. :) Okay, that was rather drawn out, but you get my point.
Feel free to use the Talk to register your opinion on the article. It's part of the reason it's there.
I can't see what help a checkbox will do other than to let people defuse a bit of frustration meaninglessly. It doesn't add quality or information to the entry.
Meta-commentary should be restricted to Talk, I believe. Otherwise it gets to be a very slippery slope into semantic porridge.
On a personal note, I too am driven to frustration by many of the articles. E.g. the "history of the United States" articles seem like they're straight out of 1950s textbooks.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org