[Wikipedia-l] Policy clarification: Undue weight

Sun Apr 9 15:09:25 UTC 2006

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  