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(a)gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l