Reading the neutral point of view policy page it's plain to see that we should never, in wikivoice, call subjects of articles disparaging names. Even if it has been repeatedly used to describe the subject of the article, even if the sources are reliable sources, Wikipedia must remain neutral. It's not a matter of whether it is verifiable, nor whether there is consensus. It's a matter of what is neutral.
Too many times I see partisans edit a page or demand an edit to a locked page that uses disparaging language about a person, group, or event, and their edits are reverted or demands to edit are ignored. They are told that consensus among experience editors has decided that the verifiability of the phrasing is supported by reliable sources. Verifiability and consensus are explicitly not able to overrule neutrality, per the policy on neutral point of view.
I did watch Katherine Maher's TED talk about verifiability versus truth (it was recommended to me when I brought this subject to the IRC channels) but this is not an issue of truth. It may be true that somebody is a jerk. It may be true that reliable sources verifiably call them a jerk. But it is not neutral to call them a jerk in wikivoice. Statements of this nature, if they are of encyclopedic value, must be attributed to the source that has made it.
This is not about any particular article, but I will point out that many Biographies of Living Persons especially those that are politically involved or tangentially politically involved suffer from this exact problem. Given the guidance on those articles specifically, it seems to me this matter should be regarded with urgency.
So what is to be done? Should we write another policy clarifying essay? I don't think so. I think we need a task force to find and eliminate non-neutral statements. While I think that many of them will likely be removed entirely with an honest reading of the neutral point of view policy, I think that it's reasonable that most of them will stand when they are couched correctly and attributed to their sources.
I also think that we need to take an honest hard look at what has happened to neutral point of view. I have repeatedly been told that I am having a problem understanding verifiability not truth, but verifiability does not overrule neutrality. When I bring it up repeatedly I'm told that I'm being disruptive, but consensus does not overrule neutrality. I know that my edit history is thin as many editors are concerned, but that should not be interpreted to mean that I don't know what I'm saying or that I can't read or understand what's being said. I don't believe that this is stemming from any sort of genuine bias or misunderstanding of policy, only a disagreement with how policy interpretations have evolved over the course of the project.
-- commie
Are you talking about anything concrete or specific? Otherwise, it seems like you are recognizing openly known tensions that all editors of good faith (which is pretty much all editors) try to negotiate with a spirit of openness and collegiality. Though sometimes we don't live up to that ideal. (I for one should know.)
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024, 5:53 PM Big Mouth Commie via Wikipedia-l < wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Reading the neutral point of view policy page it's plain to see that we should never, in wikivoice, call subjects of articles disparaging names. Even if it has been repeatedly used to describe the subject of the article, even if the sources are reliable sources, Wikipedia must remain neutral. It's not a matter of whether it is verifiable, nor whether there is consensus. It's a matter of what is neutral.
Too many times I see partisans edit a page or demand an edit to a locked page that uses disparaging language about a person, group, or event, and their edits are reverted or demands to edit are ignored. They are told that consensus among experience editors has decided that the verifiability of the phrasing is supported by reliable sources. Verifiability and consensus are explicitly not able to overrule neutrality, per the policy on neutral point of view.
I did watch Katherine Maher's TED talk about verifiability versus truth (it was recommended to me when I brought this subject to the IRC channels) but this is not an issue of truth. It may be true that somebody is a jerk. It may be true that reliable sources verifiably call them a jerk. But it is not neutral to call them a jerk in wikivoice. Statements of this nature, if they are of encyclopedic value, must be attributed to the source that has made it.
This is not about any particular article, but I will point out that many Biographies of Living Persons especially those that are politically involved or tangentially politically involved suffer from this exact problem. Given the guidance on those articles specifically, it seems to me this matter should be regarded with urgency.
So what is to be done? Should we write another policy clarifying essay? I don't think so. I think we need a task force to find and eliminate non-neutral statements. While I think that many of them will likely be removed entirely with an honest reading of the neutral point of view policy, I think that it's reasonable that most of them will stand when they are couched correctly and attributed to their sources.
I also think that we need to take an honest hard look at what has happened to neutral point of view. I have repeatedly been told that I am having a problem understanding verifiability not truth, but verifiability does not overrule neutrality. When I bring it up repeatedly I'm told that I'm being disruptive, but consensus does not overrule neutrality. I know that my edit history is thin as many editors are concerned, but that should not be interpreted to mean that I don't know what I'm saying or that I can't read or understand what's being said. I don't believe that this is stemming from any sort of genuine bias or misunderstanding of policy, only a disagreement with how policy interpretations have evolved over the course of the project.
-- commie
Wikipedia-l mailing list -- wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikipedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I did enter into a particular dispute about calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence of their BLP article, but after doing so, I mentioned it to my partner, and they pointed out other examples of neutrality being disregarded under the excuse of verifiability. This missive was not aimed at rehabilitating the particular article. I have no interest in being a special pleader for any of the individuals that are top of mind, but the state of the prevailing interpretation of policy nuance interests me greatly.
Being redirected to verifiability-not-truth repeatedly and being told that experienced editors are in agreement, when those two criteria have no bearing on neutrality, has led me to read pretty widely into noticeboard discussions and talk pages. The article about which I was most recently involved in a dispute is only a symptom of this conflict, and probably not even the most urgent example.
I believe that you are saying in good faith that you think that editors recognize these tensions and try to negotiate with a spirit of openness and collegiality, but this is not my experience. Perhaps the relative age of my account or number of edits has led other users to condescend, patronize, and disregard these issues. Whatever the reason, I am not deterred.
I am quite serious though about beginning a project of guiding the prevailing interpretation of policy back to neutrality. My comments in the IRC channel and this message are an attempt to gather information about the state of the discussion, potential remedies, and interested editors who would help.
On 4/22/24 8:17 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
Are you talking about anything concrete or specific? Otherwise, it seems like you are recognizing openly known tensions that all editors of good faith (which is pretty much all editors) try to negotiate with a spirit of openness and collegiality. Though sometimes we don't live up to that ideal. (I for one should know.)
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024, 5:53 PM Big Mouth Commie via Wikipedia-l < wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Reading the neutral point of view policy page it's plain to see that we should never, in wikivoice, call subjects of articles disparaging names. Even if it has been repeatedly used to describe the subject of the article, even if the sources are reliable sources, Wikipedia must remain neutral. It's not a matter of whether it is verifiable, nor whether there is consensus. It's a matter of what is neutral.
Too many times I see partisans edit a page or demand an edit to a locked page that uses disparaging language about a person, group, or event, and their edits are reverted or demands to edit are ignored. They are told that consensus among experience editors has decided that the verifiability of the phrasing is supported by reliable sources. Verifiability and consensus are explicitly not able to overrule neutrality, per the policy on neutral point of view.
I did watch Katherine Maher's TED talk about verifiability versus truth (it was recommended to me when I brought this subject to the IRC channels) but this is not an issue of truth. It may be true that somebody is a jerk. It may be true that reliable sources verifiably call them a jerk. But it is not neutral to call them a jerk in wikivoice. Statements of this nature, if they are of encyclopedic value, must be attributed to the source that has made it.
This is not about any particular article, but I will point out that many Biographies of Living Persons especially those that are politically involved or tangentially politically involved suffer from this exact problem. Given the guidance on those articles specifically, it seems to me this matter should be regarded with urgency.
So what is to be done? Should we write another policy clarifying essay? I don't think so. I think we need a task force to find and eliminate non-neutral statements. While I think that many of them will likely be removed entirely with an honest reading of the neutral point of view policy, I think that it's reasonable that most of them will stand when they are couched correctly and attributed to their sources.
I also think that we need to take an honest hard look at what has happened to neutral point of view. I have repeatedly been told that I am having a problem understanding verifiability not truth, but verifiability does not overrule neutrality. When I bring it up repeatedly I'm told that I'm being disruptive, but consensus does not overrule neutrality. I know that my edit history is thin as many editors are concerned, but that should not be interpreted to mean that I don't know what I'm saying or that I can't read or understand what's being said. I don't believe that this is stemming from any sort of genuine bias or misunderstanding of policy, only a disagreement with how policy interpretations have evolved over the course of the project.
-- commie
Wikipedia-l mailing list -- wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikipedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikipedia-l mailing list -- wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikipedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org