[Wikipedia-l] Policy clarification: Undue weight

Mon Apr 10 10:09:14 UTC 2006

At 09:59 10/04/2006, you wrote:
>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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at Wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > > > Wikipedia-l at 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 at Wikimedia.org
> > > > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > > Wikipedia-l at 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 at Wikimedia.org
> > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at 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 at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l