[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Sat Mar 26 16:47:30 UTC 2005

> Tom Haws wrote,
> > >Heh-heh.  It is easy to see how this problem got started.  Deleting
> >unsourced material is an excellent excuse for POV police, warriors, and
> >their ilk. 

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:02:07 -0500, steven l. rubenstein
<rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
 If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior anyone who
> insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite sources, must be
> enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a good encyclopedia? 

Tom Haws takes the view that NPOV means articles must reflect popular
opinion, not scholarly opinion. For several weeks, Tom has been
arguing that the introduction of the article [[Human]] must reflect
religious beliefs (that e.g. human beings have souls and were created
in the image of God), and not simply biological and anthropological
ones (that we are bipedal primates who engage in extensive tool use
and live in complex societies). While no editor on that page disputes
that religious views be discussed in the article, a number of us do
argue that these views have no place in the introduction.

Tom has been invited to submit references (e.g. work by theologians),
but has declined to do so, arguing that his reference is to popular
opinion. He was then invited by several editors, in the interests of
consistency, to go and add some popular opinion to the introduction of
other articles e.g. to [[Woman]], that women are seen by many people
around the world as inferior and irrational; to [[Gay]], that gay sex
is viewed by many as wicked; to [[Muslim]], that many see Muslims as a
bunch of terrorists; to [[Jew]], that many see Jews as engaged in a
plot to take over the world.

Rather than accepting the inconsistency of his position, Tom has
defended it by arguing, on [[Talk:Human]], that he simply doesn't have
time to add popular opinion to all articles that need it, adding: "
The only pertinent sifting question is, "Is it a significant point of
view?" In other words, "does it make a difference in the world?" And
for all the examples you cite, the answer is "Yes".

Note here that we are talking specifically about the introductions of
articles. I do not dispute that these views might be represented in an
article somewhere. But Tom wants to see them prominently displayed. 
And this raises an interesting question about NPOV. When we say a
majority view ought to be displayed as such, do we mean the majority
scholarly view, or do we mean popular opinion (which in some cases
might be factually incorrect or offensive)?

According to NPOV, we would probably have to stick to popular opinion.
The NPOV policy qualifies this by using the word "rational," but this
is not defined, and there are many people regarded as rational within
their own communities who believe, for example, that women need not be
given equal rights because they are inferior beings. But if we read
NPOV together with [[Wikipedia: No original research]],
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], and [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]], it
becomes clear that we mean "published, rational, majority opinion"
and, furthermore, published in a credible or reputable publication.
This will most often refer to the opinions of scholars, good
journalists, and other credible authors, and this defines the range of
majority opinion that must be given prominence. (Note: I am throughout
this post discussing prominence, not inclusion per se). This is why I
argue strongly that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines must be read
and understood together, because when viewed jointly, they do form a
coherent philosophy, and they provide a solid defense against the
introductions-must-reflect-popular-opinion position that Tom seems to
be promoting. (Though in fairness to Tom, I think he's simply being
inconsistent: I don't believe that he really wants to go around adding
popular opinion to introductions).

Sarah