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

[Ian Woollard]

On 05/02/2011, David Goodman <dggenwp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.)

A wikipedia article is NOT, in that sense, an academic paper that you
would get published. It's an *encyclopedia* article. They're not
supposed to come to a conclusion, they're supposed to summarise all of
what is known.

>  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.

No.

The Wikipedia article should then contain multiple different
conclusions, even conclusions that disagree with each other. Academic
papers almost never do that.

The only responsibility of each editor is the responsibility of
accurately reporting their sources. That's why having sources is
essential, in the long term, in the short term we need(ed) to get
articles off the ground even if we haven't found really good sources
for everything.

> 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.

No. Absolutely not!

They don't cancel out, they are ALL listed, with suitable emphasis.
The reader may come to a conclusion, but the article should only do so
if there really is a strong consensus in the world.

> 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.

No. A true understanding implies including knowing and understanding *all* POVs.

> 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.

We don't only include facts, we include POVs as well.

NPOV is pretty much the inclusion of ALL POVs (with suitable weightings).

The Wikipedia is not AN academic paper, it's supposed to be a summary
of all reliable sources (most of which should ideally be academic).

That's NOT about creating a POV!

> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

-- 
-Ian Woollard