[Wikipedia-l] Helga again

[Michael R. Irwin]

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> 
> Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> > Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> > > And I refuse to write "although most scholars believe Hitler was always a
> > > Jew-hater, some people claim that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany first",
> > > which is what we'd need to include Helga's theses.
> >
> > So let someone else write it.
> >
> > Do you contend that there are not people in the world who
> > have made, and continue to make, these kind of allegations?
> > I personally have seen/heard this kind of stuff from people
> > in North America in person and on the internet.
> 
> I think this cuts straight to the heart of how difficult NPOV can be
> at times.
> 
> In _many_ cases, it is easy to get to NPOV by simply "going meta".  If
> something is entirely uncontroversial, we can say 'X'.  If it is
> somewhat controversial, we can say "most scholars say X".  But when
> there is opposition to X but only by lunatics and frauds, it is NOT
> NPOV to simply "go meta".
> 
> I don't think, Michael, that you closely read what Vicki says that she
> refuses to write.  The _reason_ she refuses to write it is that it is
> not NPOV.

This is not my perception.  Nor, apparently, whoever proposed the
initial wording.  

> 
> Getting to NPOV in this case does not involve giving credence to
> suggestions that Hitler didn't _really_ hate Jews, nor does it involve
> giving credence to suggestions that Jews started the war with Nazi
> Germany.

I would agree with this assertion.  Credence should not be given
to any views, it should be earned in the thought processes of 
the readers.

> 
> What needs to be written about the situation in Germany leading up to
> World War II is a frank discussion of tensions between Jews and
> non-Jews, with attention given to the sources of those tensions.  This
> part of the discussion must not be framed in such a way as to suggest
> that the Holocaust was deserved, etc.  But it also need not shy away
> from a discussion of the reasons that even previously normal people in
> Germany were swept up in the anti-Jewish venom of the day.

This is distinctly non "NPOV".  The Nazi party existed.  It had
the popular support of one of the most populated and heavily 
industrialized Democracy of its day.  The totality of the material
presented should not be selected to support the frame or view that
the Holocaust was undeserved.   

Similarly, there were legitimate security concerns that lead to 
U.S. Japanese internment camps. We should present the concerns, 
the evidence, the surrounding context, the allegations which revolve
around the failure to isolate/intern the large U.S. population of
German descent, etc. and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.
I would even support summaries providing the mainstream conclusion
for the mentally lazy reader as long as not all contradictory 
evidence is excluded.  Just as it is insufficient or inappropriate
to present only the mainstream credible summaries and then the
contradictory evidence it is insuffucient and inappropriate to
"summarize" minority views as "crackpots" or "crank" view without
presenting any supporting evidence which may exist to substantiate
them slightly.

If this approach prevails then the statement: "Once upon a time the 
Earth was considered flat." would never have mutated from the
prevailing consenus of westen authorities and society that "God 
separated the Earth and Waters from the sky."  Notice the second
statement is still arguably true although many Scientists contend
it was gravity and natural processes, not God, which separated them.

You and I may disagree with the conclusions of the Nazi party
that Eugenics and Genocide were appropriate but that does not
erase the fact that either millions of Germans believed it or
else thousands of German leaders and influential people embraced
it supported by a substantial minority or majority of the population.
If this NPOV fact provides an impression contradictory to the NPOV
summary someone chooses to present then it should be pushed to an
appropriate article and linked appropriately as per the consensus
of the community in how to best achieve "NPOV, current revision."

"NPOV" will present facts regarding both viewpoints neutrally and 
allow the reader to decide.   Otherwise, an implicit editorial
policy has emerged just as "24" alleged it should/would.  If 
this is the case then we need a methodology to establsh editorial
policy and criteria.   

Mr. Sanger has proposed that we ask a
panel of highly respected intellectuals to provide us with
*guidance*.   Perhaps this *guidance* would also involve
editorial policy.  If we refuse to abdicate this power then
the responsibility for editorial policy remains with 
either the community consenus or the "owner".

> 
> It would be very hard to get to where we want to be starting with
> Helga's nonsense.

Then our procedures and methodologies need improvement.
Our project model, as I understand it, assumes that we can 
converge on where we want to be, high quality neutral presentation,
from chaotic random starts and edits from less than perfect
all knowing contributors.

> 
> > Would you care to hazard a guess regarding how much of
> > Helga's current attitudes result from restricted access to
> > information during her early education or indoctrination?
> 
> But the purpose of Wikipedia is not to rescue Helga from her poor
> education.  We need not _morally_ condemn her in order to ask her to
> stop writing nonsense.  We can have all the compassion (and
> well-meaning condescension) in the world for her plight, and still
> refuse to put up with it.

Education varies worldwide.  Broad, deep, reliable will not
be achieved unless our process is robust enough to help our
spontaneous contributors overcome limitations in their skills
and source materials.

I have little compassion or condescension for "her plight".
My concern is with rounding out an effective process to
evolve the best material ever available from an online encyclopedia
that remains an ever improving best available resource.

This necessarily requires input from more than a restricted, 
filtered, or "biased" pool of indoctrinated academics or people
within the existing western industrial power and economic structures.

> 
> > I think all views and evidence someone chooses to present
> > belong somewhere in the Wikipedia.
> 
> This is NOT our policy, nor has it ever been.  

Perhaps it is time for our policy to be updated.  As Mr.
Sanger is fond of pointing out he was responsible in large
part for its formulation.  Clearly it has served its purpose
in helping initiate the project.

Whether it is of such quality at the current time that it
can no longer be improved is a proposition that I assert
the community should assess occasionally.  Otherwise newcomer's
are not involved as peers in our community and have no reason
to embrace and assist with extension or completion of our project.

>NPOV is more subtle and
> difficult than this.  Wikipedia is not the place for factions to
> present competing "views".  We can _report on_ those views, in an
> appropriate context, but we must not allow them to distract from our
> fundamentally _encyclopedic_ mission, which necessarily involves
> summary and selection.

Selection, censorship or propaganda?  If Nazi views can be
summarily dismissed as inappropriate or incorrect then there
are few modern minorities influential enough to justify NPOV
presentation.

If competing views cannot be presented, only reported from the
view of the currently dominant faction with claims of being
"NPOV" in style of presentation then Wikipedia should drop
its pretense of broad and deep.  Reliability may also be
compromised.

What are your criteria for "appropriate context"?  How should
these critera be modified or influenced by newcomers to improve
their neutrality or suitability for the Wikipedia in the
consensus view of the current community?  If the answer is
agree with the current predefined project standards or go
elsewhere then we clearly have:

1.  A possibly builtin bias based upon the initial group
who arrived and consented to policy prior to the freeze.

2.  An inability to improve or broaden our community of
participators beyond the initial pool well represented
(accidentally) by the current policy and guidelines.

3.  No way to correct errors present at the project
initialization.  We will not be ever converging on the
best definition of perfection or neutrality we can 
devise with the assistance and consensus of the instantaneous
community of active contributors; but rather on the best 
interpretation of the initial policy the community can agree 
to put up with. 

Elsewhere I have suggested that top level NPOV summaries 
should be contextualized from the mainstream views, as neutrally
as practical, with links to additional material or detail for the
reader who desires it.  Some of which may be presented from an 
identified viewpoint.

regards,
Mike Irwin