[Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea

[Wouter Steenbeek]

>From: Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea
>Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:08:40 -0400
>
>On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 12:36:45PM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
> > Furthermore, I don't buy any claims to NPOV. Language is inherently
> > biased. One bias is what gets mentioned. Wikipedia is more comprehensive
> > than other encyclopedias in another realm, but  Another bias is what
> > gets mentioned first. Wikipedia articles are currently serial, so there
> > is always an order to the mentioning of any topic. There are also biases
> > in the wording and terminology of 'controversial' figures and unpopular
> > viewpoints. Who arbitrates who is controversial, or what is unpopular?
> > In the sign-off system I propose, we actually have hard numbers as to
> > what is controversial and unpopular.
>
>I disagree with that characterization of NPOV as a goal.  Rather than
>say that it's some kind of myth to which we pretend to subscribe here,
>I'm of the opinion that it's more an asymptote rather than a point on a
>graph, and we are (in general) "approaching NPOV" incrementally with our
>efforts.  The fact that we may never reach an absolute value of NPOV
>idoesn't make it any less real, though.
>
>--
>Chad Perrin

Steve's proposal is interesting and can be defended from a philosophical 
point of view. Indeed most philosophers involved with science agree that 
objectivity is an illusion, and the quasi-objectivity we reach in e.g. 
encyclopaedias is only a broad consensus within one culture. On some topics, 
everyone agrees, on other ones, people hold divergent views. That justifies 
splitting a controversial topic.

On the other hand, the predominant culture expects encyclopaedias to reach a 
convergent (quasi-)objectivity and therefore both to speak with one voice on 
the same topic and omit statements that are generally considerd "opinions" 
rather than "facts", or even nonsense. For Wikipedia in a postmodern setting 
would have to abandon the hitherto drawn line between facts and opinions.

Therefore I oppose this idea, since it goes counter to the conventions, 
which are per se accepted by consensus, applying to any encyclopaedia, and 
will hardly be helpful to achieve the "Brittannica or better"-aim formulated 
by Jimbo.

Wouter

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger: altijd en overal beschikbaar http://webmessenger.msn.com/