[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Sat Mar 26 20:04:15 UTC 2005

I want to clarify the e-mail I sent earlier regarding Tom Haws' views
at [[Talk:Human]]. Upon re-reading it, I'm worried I gave the
impression that Tom is being an edit warrior, and feel I should make
clear that his views have been confined to the talk page of [[Human]].
He has not attempted to insert those views into the article itself;
the talk-page discussion, which is robust but perfectly civil, is
being held precisely to decide whether those views ought to be
inserted.  I don't agree with Tom, but I respect him as an editor, and
he clearly has Wikipedia's best interests in mind. I hope that
clarifies what I wrote earlier.

Sarah

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:47:30 -0700, slimvirgin at gmail.com
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
>