[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors}

[David Goodman]

Academic writing makes a judgement about  what the most likely state
of matters is, and gives a position. When I read  an academic paper ,
in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions. (I am
likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if they seem
interesting, then go back and read the evidence.)  I don't see how
community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for which a
particular person does not take responsibility: the reason is that
different people will necessarily reach different conclusions.

A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a POV, but
nonetheless arrange the material so  as to express one. I think all
good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or textbook
writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying one,
beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the different
people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel each other
out.

But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a particular
direction. We try to write articles so the readers will have an
understanding. An understanding implies a POV. This provides a
fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning guide, and
give a basis for further understanding--"understanding" implies a
theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts of
variable relevance. So our present rules are right for the way we
work: we can not aim for more than accuracy and balance.   Let those
who wish to truly explain things use Wikipedia as a method of
orientation, but then they will need to find a medium that will
express their personal view.

In teaching, I find even beginning students know this, and recognize
the limitations. I think the general public does also, and it is our
very imperfections that make it evident. If we looked more polished,
it would be misleading. What we need to work for now is twofold:
bringing up the bottom level so that what we present is accurate and
representative, sourced appropriately and helpfully;  and increasing
our breath of coverage to the neglected areas--the traditional
humanities and similar areas in one direction, and everything outside
the current English speaking world, in the other .

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the
>> more
>> heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the
>> more
>> lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive.
>>
>> NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to
>> reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative
>> sources
>> in their restraint.
>>
>> I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning
>> more
>> weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of "not
>> reliable"/"reliable", where everything on the "reliable" side is given
>> equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an
>> authoritative
>> scholarly biography.
>>
>> Andreas
>
> No one is "obligated" to edit in a foolish way. Editorial judgment means
> use your OWN best judgment, and, if there are issues, discuss what weight
> to give various sources.
>
> Fred
>
-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG