[WikiEN-l] Proposals for new policy/guidelines

[Jonas Rand]

> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Proposals for new policy/guidelines
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>

>
> Jonas Rand wrote:
>> I believe that many of Wikipedia's current policies are flawed, and 
>> should
>> be replaced by new ones, and/or new policies should be created. The 
>> neutral
>> point of view policy is especially flawed in that there is no such thing 
>> as
>> completely unbiased. Everyone has a bias, and it complicates things when
>> people hide biases and pretend not to have them. Wikipedia should be an
>> open, collaborative site where everyone can voice their opinions on a
>> subject. This would be under a horizontal rule below the article.
>>
> You clearly don't understand NPOV.  Its presence is an acknowledgement
> that everyone has a bias; it's not a denial.  Indeed if everyone were
> capable of unbiased writing it would no longer be needed.  The neutral
> point of view is not accomplished by one person; rather it is a
> synthesis of multiple views drawing in different directions until a
> balance is reached. We have far fewer problems with people hiding their
> biases than with people insisting on them.

I have heard this, and I think this interpretation of NPOV is good for a 
fundamental principle. However, the interpretation that it is trying to be 
without any point of view, which I have also heard, is a bad idea.

>
> There is a lot of room for expressing opinions on the talk pages where
> an opinion is recognized as such.  For the most part, however, we are
> not in a position to pass judgement on the validity of an opinion.
The talk page is for opinions regarding the _article_, not the subject of 
the article.

>> Claims in an article should mostly be supported by sources, if they are
>> scientific claims. It should also be a place where people experienced 
>> about
>> a subject are respected and trusted if their claims are supported by 
>> other
>> scientific publications. Original research, however, should also be 
>> allowed,
>> if the research is extensive and sophisticated.
>>
> Whether a claim is "scientific" is a subjective judgement.  Whether a
> person is sufficiently "experienced" is a subjective judgement.  So too
> are several of the qualifiers in your statement.  Your premises only
> lead to circular arguments and fallacious reasoning.  Who decides
> whether original research is extensive and sophisticated?  If it is
> truly original we necessarily only have the word of the researcher.
> Allowing them would leave us with a lot of strange theories without the
> capacity to perform adequate peer review ourselves.
>
> All this is still consistent with my view that the demand for sources,
> and accusations of original research are frequently taken to excess, but
> that's another story.  The fundamental requirements in these areas
> remain sound.
Thank you for bringing attention to this, I'm sorry. I meant research 
supported by pubications by scientists who are somewhat knowledgeable about 
the subject (i.e. other pubications in that field) should at least be 
considered and not outlawed.

>> All opinions should be allowed.
> They are ... on the talk page.

Only opinions regarding the article, improvements we should make to it, et 
cetera. I am not saying we should replace the talk page with a discussion 
page for the subject, as the talk page does serve a useful purpose. We 
should keep the talk page, and use the subject discussion page alongside it.

Jonas