[WikiEN-l] Re: Crappy prose isn't the main "quality" problem.

[Koltwills at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/25/2005 9:18:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
ilyanep at gmail.com writes:

Does  NPOV or NOR allow analysis at all? Not in the slightest.

While it is  meant to discourage pushing a viewpoint and putting uncited
research up on  Wikipedia, what would happen if someone were to analyze a
point in an  article?

In some cases it would seem to be pushing a point of view  (even if the
opposite POV is expressed) and sometimes would cause an edit  war

In other cases it would be seen as original research (oh no! You  can't say
that without citing it!)

Maybe I'm just not understanding  correctly what you mean by analyzing.

On 10/25/05, Koltwills at aol.com  <Koltwills at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> In a  message dated 10/25/2005 5:28:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>  ilyanep at gmail.com writes:
>
> Agreed...and it could be argued that  some of our policies prohibit such an
> article from being  created.
>
> ~Ilya N. (User:Ilyanep)
>
>
>  *applauding Daniel Smith's analysis of the comments in the Guardian
>  article"
>
> Policies such as?
>
>  dcv
>
 
Yes, POV pushing is a concern, but I agree that reasoned, fair and balanced  
analysis is important.  Unfortunately, those with a more limited  
interpretation of Wikipedia policy often tend to see any analysis as  POV.  I've 
encountered this problem with "Afrocentrism" -- with, of course,  the objections coming 
from mostly whiners who lodge vague complaints because the  article advances 
information about which they've already formed opinions  without, IMO, an 
adequate (or erroneous) "knowledge" base.  In  short, some of their misconceptions 
and biases are being challenged not  only about certain aspects of history, 
but about the fundamental nature of  Afrocentrism itself.
 
And with "Melanin," there were those who simply flat-out objected to  
substantive mention of race/color bias in the article, claiming the piece should  
treat only the obvious scientific aspects of the subject matter -- sparking an  
edit war.  How much of that was due to stalking and whining about my  
"fixation" on such issues or a desire to avoid mention of such matters  altogether, or 
due to people who honestly believed such a "connect the  dots" treatment of 
the subject inappropriate (addressing the Guardian complaint  that pieces are 
sometimes  superficial/shallow in their treatment of  subject matter) is hard to 
gauge.  
 
I could say the same thing about "Cool (African aesthetic)," because I  
suspect some of the same issues are at play there.  However, the piece  itself is 
far too sketchy at this point to be a clear example.
 
This is where admins come in.  Some are crappy/biased themselves, but  others 
are fair/open-minded.  I think it's important that  administrators make it a 
point to intervene in such disputes and uphold the  validity of analyzing 
facts in a straightforward, principled, adequately  referenced fashion -- even 
when the line of thinking/issues analyzed may be  unfamiliar to them or at odds 
with previously held assumptions/take them out of  their intellectual comfort 
zone.
 
Of course, the more off the beaten path certain notions/subject matter is,  
the more contentious the debate tends to be, and this can be problematic when  
dealing with immature contributors who are either incapable of being, or  
unwilling to be, rational and analytical and simply are determined to be  
obtuse/obstructionist/antagonistic.  Again, that's when savvy  administrators can be 
helpful, reminding others that Wikipedia should be more  than a glorified 
message board where articles should be more than series of  facts strung together 
under a handful of subheads.
 
In "Blackface," NPOV/POV issues (and others) were less of a problem than  
some anticipated -- perhaps because, while dealing with a somewhat sensitive  
issue, the subject matter was not really fundamentally controversial.   At any 
rate, at least from my own personal vantage point, it's an instance where  
analysis (connecting blackface to darky iconography and also discussing the  
far-reaching cultural implications of the phenomenon) works.  And I'm not  tooting 
my own horn here; there were lots of contributors to the piece.   It's just 
simply something I'm familiar with and an instance where, I think,  Wikipedia's 
collaborative give-and-take produced something of quality.
 
Didn't someone, somewhere say: "Be bold!"? 
 
dcv