[WikiEN-l] CSD T1

[Peter Mackay]

> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org 
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Nick Boalch
> 
> Peter Mackay wrote:
> >>> NPOV, for example, depends on different points of view, including 
> >>> political
> >>> opinions, being given space consistent with their level 
> of support.
> >>
> >> Consistent with their level of support in the world, yes. 
> Consistent 
> >> with their level of support among the Wikipedia editing community, 
> >> no. There is a crucial difference.
> > 
> > Beg pardon, but I think you've got that the wrong way around...
> 
> I don't think so. Take [[Criticism of Wikipedia]], for 
> instance. I imagine that most regular Wikipedia editors 
> disagree with many of those criticisms. For example, I doubt 
> that many of us agree with Robert McHenry and Andrew Orlowski 
> that it is improper and unsuitable for Wikipedia to call 
> itself an encyclopaedia. However, this is an opinion

Hardly an average Wikipedia article, wouldn't you agree?

> Accordingly on other articles, different points of view need 
> to be included based on their prominence and level of support 
> in the real world, not just on which happens to be most 
> popular among the Wikipedia editing community.

That's the problem. In theory, theory and practice are identical. In
practice, they aren't.

WP articles are not written by the general community, they are written by
editors, usually a handful of core contributors. NPOV works out to what
these editors agree it is, simply because nobody else has any significant
input.

This especially applies to articles on specialist or relatively obscure
topics. High-profile articles fare better because there are more eyes on
them.
 
> >>> People are free to express their political opinions so 
> long as it is 
> >>> done in a civil and non-inflammatory manner.
> >>
> >> They may be free to express them, but my point is that they
> >> aren't free to inflict them on articles.
> > 
> > That's precisely what I *do* mean. Articles are written by 
> people with 
> > political views, and where I know an editor's political 
> opinions (if 
> > they are revealed on user or talk pages), I find it extremely rare 
> > that they write something in an article that is contrary to those 
> > opinions.
> > 
> > A good editor will do it in a civil, factual, sourced and 
> > non-inflammatory manner, consistent with NPOV.
> 
> Yes. Which is exactly what I said above.

It may be what you meant to say, but it certainly is not what I understood
you to say. Hence my response.

> Writing consistently 
> with NPOV is not 'inflicting your opinion on an article'. 
> Biasing an article towards your own opinions *is* inflicting 
> your opinion on an article, is obviously not consistent with 
> NPOV.

Beg pardon, but it is. If (say) a Republican and a Democrat write an
article, each one only writing material that supports and reinforces their
partisan views, but the end result is balanced and consistent with community
support, then that is NPOV.

> I don't particularly want to end up rehashing the whole 
> userbox debacle, but we *have* seen groups of users banding 
> together with the specific, identified purpose of 
> systematically applying bias to Wikipedia articles.

Sure. Wikipedia is generally able to handle this. 
 
> >>Jimbo's word on the matter:
> >>
> >>   The point is, we don't act *in Wikipedia* as a Democrat, a 
> >>   Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are
> >>   Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral.
> > 
> > With all due respect to you and Jimbo, that's not the way 
> it happens. 
> > Thoughtful, loving, neutral, touchy-feely gets good marks, 
> but editors 
> > don't suddenly turn into opinionless automatons. Nor do we 
> want them 
> > to. We want Republicans to have input into articles on the 
> Republican 
> > Party. We just don't want it to be Republican propaganda.
> 
> With all due respect to you, I think you're slightly 
> misinterpreting what Jimbo (and I) actually mean. I don't 
> think either of us are suggesting that editors should be 
> 'opinionless automatons', just that they shouldn't let their 
> opinions influence the way they write articles.

That's plain bizarre. There's absolutely nothing wrong with editors
inserting their own opinions into articles. It happens every day. So long as
it is done with NPOV in mind it works fine. Here is the fundamental
statement of NPOV, taken from [[WP:NPOV]]:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The
policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these
should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view
are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that
the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different
views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

May I highlight that sentence: "All significant points of view are
presented, not just the most popular one."

--
Peter in Canberra