[Wikipedia-l] Policy clarification: Undue weight

Mon Apr 10 11:21:56 UTC 2006

Hi

> I think the problem is that on WP, people try to enforce the letter of
> the law when it suits them, and when it doesn't, they try to enforce
> based on its intent.

LOLOL Only on WP?? Really??? :)))))))

> There is obviously a simple way to solve this, but most users actually
> secretly hate NPOV -- they like the fact that there are loopholes that
> allow them to somehow get their opinions and viewpoints into
> Wikipedia.

Simply, there is no such person as an NPOV writer. Everyone writes from
his/her own POV, because that's the way people think and experience
knowledge. EVERY book edition reflects the POV of the publisher, and the
publisher mirrors his age and society's POV. Books are made to be sold,
wikipedias need readers and users, so we ALL are market-driven (no matter
how little we may like it). A wiki is a complex society, which is
elaborating its own POV, if one is to be honest about it.

I believe the whole NPOV matter not to carry any scientific meaning at all
(at least, from a psychologically oriented POV). What is called NPOV should
more properly be labelled as "generally acceptable for the time being"
(GA4TB). The larger the amount of people judging a subject, the closest we
get to an exact picture of what is GA4TB. Obviously, the closer you get to
exact sciences, such as math, the less you are in trouble. 2+2 IS 4. But you
only need to write a section in any human science related field and the
fireworks immediately start. WHO is going to decide what is a NPOV writing
style in recent history? Pretty often, it only takes to slightly change an
adjective to move a guy from the realm of dictators to the House of the
Holies. Besides, different languages have different implied structures of
moral judgement. Sometimes moving a comma will do the trick.

So yes, policies are needed, and they must be clear. Besides, it takes a
VERY simple procedure to call for a public judgment, which must be
"temporarily final", say, some years. It would also help to elect some
external "references for truth", like the Britannica, to name one. This does
NOT mean that the Britannica is NPOV. It is simply GA4TB in the eyes of the
western academic establishment.

And yet... a WP is much wider in scope than a Britannica. Besides, the
Britannica is strictly POVed towards the EU and USA, which may not be
acceptable to a huge number of eastern editions. What if in the hindi
edition indian history was supposed to be given a "dued weight" according to
an european book? The cat bit its own tail... :(

Still, the number of WP editions is constantly growing, therefore some
co-ordination on this subject is absolutely needed. There is no such thing
as a perfect policy, but a faulty shared policy is still to be preferred to
a carnival of local standards. Isn't this the prime reason for the existence
of a META? Besides... it's an interesting event in itself. Just think about
it. It will be the first time EVER, that a standard for truth is
collectively defined by a planet-wide audience. Mind you, on a second
thought it also sounds pretty scary, I have to admit it. I suppose the vote
should include an option for leaving local truth standards untouched.

> 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.

And if they say they succeeded in writing NPOV, they aren't humans at all
:))))) Hey... what was the NPOV policy for the klingon wiki? :)))))))))))

Bèrto