I would say that the vast majority of people who
abuse it are people
with an agenda.
The point of it is so that we don't have pages and pages of Alex Chiu
crap in [[immortality]] and [[teleportation]] and the like, or two
entire books full of "how to goodbye depression" and "internal fenix"
(sic) crap in the [[Eric Castenada]] article.
The point is not so that we don't have two sentences about Flat
Earthers or so that we don't have two sentences about people who
believe GWB sucks.
I agree with all of this, but nevertheless, editors are citing undue
weight and that information should be presented in the "proportion to
the prominence of each". And this is in relation to little-known
verifiable peer-reviewed papers.
I've been through every dispute resolution processes, consensus falls
behind one another and tells me I'm wrong; the administrators notice
board say they can handle only 3RR and vandalism. The mediation cabal
talks reason, but can't make a decision, and the arbitration
committee tell me its a contents dispute.
I can't even get policy clarified as certain editors are content with
the current wording.
What's my next course of action? I personally believe that the
addition of one sentence of clarification in the Undue weight section
of NPOV would solve the issue.
On 09/04/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
> This is an on-going problem. It is done both by those who
> misunderstand the policy and by those with a point of view agenda.
> The only reasonable recourse is to patiently discuss the policy. I'm
> not sure the section on undue weight could be made any clearer. If
> you are unable to negotiate successfully with those who have a point
> of view agenda please use the dispute resolution procedure. Please
> don't edit war with them.
> On Apr 9, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
> > Significant material is sometimes excluded from some articles on the
> > grounds of undue weight. Can someone clarify whether the policy on
> > NPOV Undue weight is being misinterpreted, and if so, whether it can
> > be clarified?
> > NPOV Undue weight states:
> > * "... the article should fairly represent all significant
> > viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each". See
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Point_of_View#Undue_weight
> > But if the perceived prominence is very low, the proportion is
> > rounded down to zero, and material excluded, regardless of the
> > significance? The policy goes on to say:
> > * "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or
> > to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape
> > of the dispute."
> > In other words, the mere mention of a significant-minority view may
> > be misleading, not whether we write that text in a neutral point of
> > view?
> > But I also note from the NPOV tutorial:
> > * Editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject
> > in an unfair way [.. by] Entirely omitting significant citable
> > information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it
> > is claimed to be not credible.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
> > I have examples of material being excluded from several articles on
> > the grounds of Undue weight, though the material is peer-reviewed,
> > citable and verifiable. In some cases, there are dozens of citations.
> > The result is that anonymous and accountable editors may by
> > consensus, completely exclude verifiable material from credible,
> > career scientists; yet "Consensus should not trump
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV>NPOV (or any other official
> > policy)" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
> > Shouldn't we be open and inclusive, so that "Readers are left to form
> > their own opinions" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > Neutral_Point_of_View ]
> > I'd like to see a clarification that significant minority views, in
> > which prominent adherences can be verified (eg. as peer-reviewed
> > authors), should not be excluded from an article on the grounds of
> > undue weight; their views may be summarised, though detailed in an
> > article of their own.
> > Examples on request.
> > Regards,
> > Ian Tresman
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l mailing list