My guess:
You never will.
Is it unfair? Yes. Do I think you should be able to? Yes.
In all likelyhood, will it ever change? Nope.
Surely anything can change if there is the will. It is VERY simple. A
one line clarification in the NPOV Undue weight section.
Then editors can get on with editing, rather than policy-making decisions.
Regards,
Ian
In short: I wish I could help you, but it's pretty
much hopeless.
Mark
On 10/04/06, Ian Tresman <it(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
Ask any Wikipedian if they've ever knowingly
tried somehow or other to
get a POV in Wikipedia. If they say no, they're lying or they haven't
been around very long.
Sure, we all like to put a "good spin" on our own points of view, and
begrudgingly moderate our views to fit into the neutral point of
view style.
But I'm talking about the wholesale exclusion of material on the
pretext of undue weight. I haven't even got as far as describing the
minority view, let alone doing so in an NPOV style.
Regards,
Ian
>Mark
>
>On 10/04/06, Ian Tresman <it(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
> > At 20:20 09/04/2006, you wrote:
> > >I would say that the vast majority of people who abuse it are people
> > >with an agenda.
> > >
> > >The point of it is so that we don't have pages and pages of Alex Chiu
> > >crap in [[immortality]] and [[teleportation]] and the like, or two
> > >entire books full of "how to goodbye depression" and
"internal fenix"
> > >(sic) crap in the [[Eric Castenada]] article.
> > >
> > >The point is not so that we don't have two sentences about Flat
> > >Earthers or so that we don't have two sentences about people who
> > >believe GWB sucks.
> >
> >
> > I agree with all of this, but nevertheless, editors are citing undue
> > weight and that information should be presented in the "proportion to
> > the prominence of each". And this is in relation to little-known
> > verifiable peer-reviewed papers.
> >
> > I've been through every dispute resolution processes, consensus falls
> > behind one another and tells me I'm wrong; the administrators notice
> > board say they can handle only 3RR and vandalism. The mediation cabal
> > talks reason, but can't make a decision, and the arbitration
> > committee tell me its a contents dispute.
> >
> > I can't even get policy clarified as certain editors are content with
> > the current wording.
> >
> > What's my next course of action? I personally believe that the
> > addition of one sentence of clarification in the Undue weight section
> > of NPOV would solve the issue.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ian
> >
> > >Mark
> > >
> > >On 09/04/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
> > > > This is an on-going problem. It is done both by those who
> > > > misunderstand the policy and by those with a point of view agenda.
> > > > The only reasonable recourse is to patiently discuss the
policy. I'm
> > > > not sure the section on undue
weight could be made any clearer. If
> > > > you are unable to negotiate successfully with those who
have
a point
> > > > of view agenda please use the
dispute resolution procedure. Please
> > > > don't edit war with them.
> > > >
> > > > Fred
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 9, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Significant material is sometimes excluded from some
articles on the
> > > > > grounds of undue weight.
Can someone clarify whether
the policy on
> > > > > NPOV Undue weight is
being misinterpreted, and if so,
whether it can
> > > > > be clarified?
> > > > >
> > > > > NPOV Undue weight states:
> > > > >
> > > > > * "... the article should fairly represent all
significant
> > > > > viewpoints, in
proportion to the prominence of each". See
> > > > >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Point_of_View#Undue_weight
> > > > >
> > > > > But if the perceived prominence is very low, the proportion is
> > > > > rounded down to zero, and material excluded, regardless of the
> > > > > significance? The policy goes on to say:
> > > > >
> > > > > * "To give undue weight to a
significant-minority view, or
> > > > > to include a
tiny-minority view, might be misleading as
to the shape
> > > > > of the dispute."
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words, the mere mention of a
significant-minority view may
> > > > > be misleading, not
whether we write that text in a
neutral point of
> > > > > view?
> > > > >
> > > > > But I also note from the NPOV tutorial:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Editors may unwittingly or deliberately
present a subject
> > > > > in an unfair way [.. by]
Entirely omitting significant citable
> > > > > information in support of a minority view, with the
argument that it
> > > > > is claimed to be not
credible.
> > > > >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have examples of material being excluded from several
articles on
> > > > > the grounds of Undue
weight, though the material is
peer-reviewed,
> > > > > citable and verifiable.
In some cases, there are dozens
of citations.
> > > > >
> > > > > The result is that anonymous and accountable editors may by
> > > > > consensus, completely exclude verifiable material from
credible,
> > > > > career scientists; yet "Consensus should not trump
> > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV>NPOV (or any other
official
> > > > > policy)" See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
> > > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't we be open and inclusive, so that "Readers
are left to form
> > > > > their own opinions"
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > > > > Neutral_Point_of_View ]
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to see a clarification that significant
minority views, in
> > > > > which prominent
adherences can be verified (eg. as peer-reviewed
> > > > > authors), should not be excluded from an article on the
grounds of
> > > > > undue weight; their
views may be summarised, though
detailed in an
> > > article of their own.
> > >
> > > Examples on request.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ian Tresman
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> > >
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> >
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
>--
>"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l