[WikiEN-l] Tannin, it seems, has changed lots of articles

[Ray Saintonge]

james duffy wrote:

> The thing is, we are an ENCYCLOPÆDIA. (BTW, I am not shouting. I just 
> can't do italics here!!!) As such we should strive as much as possible 
> for accuracy and that includes accuracy in capitalisation. We can use 
> redirects to deal with commonly understood names/titles/use of 
> capitalisation, etc. But we should as an encyclopædia aim to be an 
> accurate factual source of information, not aim simply to produce 
> commonly understood but inaccurate information. For example,  millions 
> of people think Queen Elizabeth II is 'queen of England'. In fact she 
> isn't and couldn't be as England ceased to exist as a separate kingdom 
> in 1707. So we have a redirect page based on the wrong but commonly 
> understood title, but the actual page is on the correctly titled page. 
> So someone coming to the page is able to go away knowing the 'correct' 
> facts, including the correct title, knowing more when they leave than 
> when they came to it.
>
> That is what an encyclopædia is, a source of factual information that 
> educates people looking for information. If the grey-haired longtail 
> buzzard is correctly called the Grey Haired, Longtail Buzzard of Ohio, 
> then a person coming to wiki should be able to find that out and know 
> that leaving wiki. We aren't a tabloid newspaper that can aim for a 
> general low-brow standard. Encyclopædias have to aim to produce the 
> highest standard of educational information. People should come to 
> wiki to get more information than they possess, not simply to reflect 
> the standard they came with. The very fact that they are searching for 
> more information means they are not satisfied they have enough and 
> need more. If wiki gets a reputation for not being accurate, just 
> being there, what is the point of wiki? Accuracy involves such basic 
> facts as correct spelling and correct capitalisation. So Tannin is 
> correct to try to get things as accurate as possible in the area of 
> capitalisation.

These comments start from the very good premise that we should encourage 
correct facts, but concludes by promoting a particular POV as being the 
correct one in a particular set of circumstances, capitaliZation of the 
English names of animal species.  It seems to me that that single word 
"correct" (and its synonyms, of course) is one of the most POV words in 
the language.  Spelling and capitalization are not a part of the basic 
facts about a species; they are incidental facts; the species itself is 
blissfully unaware of the debate.  In my most generous NPOV moments I 
regard the situation about capitalizing species names as conflicted and 
undecided right across the spectrum of people who might be interested in 
such things.  When I'm most irritated by the opposite POV I say that 
capitals are dead wrong.  This issue would progress far more smoothly if 
the capitalizers would disavow themselves of the illusion that their POV 
is necessarily correct.

Ec