[WikiEN-l] Re: Example vs. Original research

[Geoff Burling]

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Delirium wrote:

> Ryan Delaney wrote:
>
> > The [[Race and intelligence]] article is a perfect example of this
> > phenomenon. People who know nothing about the research done in this
> > field have many times gone into that article and edited it mercilessly
> > in the name of NPOV because the established scientific opinion
> > presented (and extensively referenced) in the article is very
> > contradictory to the "politically correct" opinion. In my view,
> > Wikipedians need to have more respect for references and experts to
> > prevent this kind of thing from happening. The usual Wiki philosophy
> > usually works in other cases, but in such an emotional subject as
> > [[Race and intelligence]], people tend to go way overboard, and the
> > NPOV and "everyone's equal" policies only make them more convictional
> > about their right to push their POV over that of the academic consensus.
>
> In such cases, where there are mostly-irreconcilable differences of
> opinion held by various groups, it makes sense to simply describe the
> opinion of each group, properly attributed.  In this case, there could
> be a section on academic viewpoints, and one on how the issue plays out
> in the political sphere.  Of course, political groups who attack the
> academic consensus should have their POV reported as well and properly
> attributed.
>
> Sometimes there might be more than two sections as well---the areas on
> psychiatry/psychology/mental-illness could use a revamping to better
> attribute and cover the range of: 1) medical consensus [e.g. what the
> _DSM_ says]; 2) scientific consensus of current research [often not the
> same as #1]; 3) philosophical consensus opinion [e.g. on the definition
> of "mental illness"]; and 4) public/political opinion.  So long as all
> opinions are properly attributed to who holds them, rather than
> presented as "the right opinion", I don't see why these can't all co-exist.
>
Well put, Mark.

Often I explain NPOV to non-Wikipedians sometimes resolving to an agreement
between different parties to disagree: e.g., some people think George Bush
is a good president of the US, some think he is a bad one. As Mark points
out here, often NPOV is best served when there are multiple POVs on a
subject by explaining the argument & how these various groups came to
their conclusions.

All groups involved should embrace this approach in their own best
interest, & exert themselves to make sure the POVs of groups opposed to
them are accurately explained for one good reason. Although I usually
prefer to use the language John Milton expressed it Areopagitica,
Sun Tzu might have expressed it in a way that will convince more
Wikipedians, that you must know your enemy to defeat him.

Geoff