[WikiEN-l] My views on policies and debates over content

[Jack Lynch]

Additionally, I, and assumably many others, read encyclopedias, and
esp. the wikipedia, as a source of extremely obscure and bizarre info
not to be found elsewhere.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 6/10/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Stephen Bain wrote:
> 
> >On 6/9/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>The other point was that WP is (or wants to be) an
> >>>encyclopaedia, and that some POVs have to be excluded. The
> >>>way we do that is by assessing how much (academic) support
> >>>they have, in terms of the context and subject matter.
> >>>There's no need for content committees, as long as consensus
> >>>decisions on WP:NPOV can be acheieved (mediation) and
> >>>enforced (arbitration).
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Stephen Bain
> >>>
> >>>
> >>If the decision on excluded POVs is made on the basis of how much
> >>support they have, we will quickly turn toward a regime of censorhip of
> >>unpopular views.
> >>
> >>* We won't even be able to MENTION that a minority of
> >>  scientists contacted by the UN's climate panel (IPCC)
> >>  disagree with the "consensus" that anthropogenic emissions
> >>  are causing excessive atmospheric warming.
> >>
> >>
> >That's not what I meant. I'll quote Jimbo again (as appearing on WP:NPOV):
> >
> >* 1 If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to
> >substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
> >* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be
> >easy to name prominent adherents;
> >* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited)
> >minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some
> >ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and
> >regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
> >
> >So using your example, the majority of the IPCC adivsers say
> >anthropogenic emissions cause global warming, and they come under #1.
> >The minority who disagree come under #2, as long as you can name them,
> >and for practical purposes, perhaps cite a source in which they made
> >this claim. If just one scientist came out and said that that global
> >warming is caused by aliens, for example, then that would fall under
> >#3, since one scientist is a vastly limited minority.
> >
> So who is claiming that it is caused by aliens?  It's easy to invent an
> argument that is supported by no-one and use that as an argument that
> the position is not verifiable.
> 
> >I've never said that only one POV should be represented, only that
> >extreme minority POVs shouldn't be.
> >
> This is still treating truth as a numbers game.  Sometimes great
> scientific discoveries have come from people who stubbornly maintained
> their opinions on a discovery.  Verifiability is a more important
> criterion than being the position of a small minority.  Some people who
> held the ridiculous minority notion that the earth went around the sun
> were severely persecuted at one time.
> 
> Ec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>