[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor

Mon Nov 24 21:17:56 UTC 2003

Allan Crossman wrote:
> In order to show that William Connolley's edit is POV, you have to 
> show that the claim he says is "clearly false" is in fact a serious 
> point of contention in the relevant field.

Not having seen the edit in question, I can't comment on it in
particular, but I did want to say that the burden of proof on Ed is
significantly less than this.  It's best to attribute claims that are
in fact a serious point of contention, period, not just "in the
relevant field".

> NPOV is only an issue for claims that are not yet proven or disproven 
> to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the relevant experts. 
> You'll have to show that what William says is in fact in a serious 
> state of dispute in the field. It may or may not be. You've provided 
> no evidence on the matter.

This bit is important -- it might be that "within the field" of
postmodern literary criticism (for example), some idea 'X' is accepted
as a matter of course, and that no one within that field questions it.
But outside the field, others may find reason to dispute it
vigorously.

--Jimbo