[WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Jay Litwyn]

The problem is reliability of what is inherently opinion. I see no problem 
with writing opinions about facts outside of articles. This is also what the 
documents about weasel words are about. Opinions about facts are qualified. 
I want wikipedia restricted to what is not open to dispute. If pundits 
argue, then wikipedia should be immune to having to block users because they 
had an argument amid the edit summaries about which pundit will be right. 
The future is controversial. It is controversial, because predicting the 
future affects the future. Facts are not controversial. There is enough 
controversy in the meaning of facts.

Human language is like a cracked kettle upon which we beat out tunes for 
bears to dance to, while all the time we are meaning to move the stars to 
pity. --Gustave Flaubert

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Oskar Sigvardsson" <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL


> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jay Litwyn <brewhaha at edmc.net> wrote:
>> Even jenerally accepted projections, among economists, are open to 
>> dispute
>> on magnitude and applicability. Economics projections, like weather
>> projections, get more erroneous as future becomes more distant.
>
> This is exactly! You write that! You write about the dissent, you
> write about how there's different views by different people. You write
> that the future, as of yet, is uncertain, but you should at least put
> in what people are saying!
>
> Wikipedia shouldn't have a "This is what we think will happen" section
> on the article about the financial crisis. That would be ludicrous.
> But to completely avoid any mention of opinions of top economists
> about the scale of the problem simply makes for a bad article. This
> information is relevant, it is neutral, and it is informative. You can
> write about it in a neutral and factual way, and we have an obligation
> to inform the readers about what is happening.
>
> The essence of WP:CRYSTAL is (or at least should be) that *we*
> shouldn't speculate on the future. But writing about other people that
> do, in a neutral, relevant and factual way (with caveats that clearly
> state that the actual future is uncertain) absolutely has a place in
> wikipedia. It gives readers a deeper understanding of what's going on,
> and it gives them information about what the big-wigs are thinking.
>
> --Oskar
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l