[Wikipedia-l] Policy clarification: Undue weight

Mon Apr 10 18:19:06 UTC 2006

HiI

> You can tell that feminists from such-and-such period opposed
> something as being oppressive to women without giving a list of
> arguments why it is and why it isn't oppressive, no?

No, because then you leave the reader to decide what is oppressive, and what
is not. The reader ends up in making an interesting decision, but sadly
gains no knowledge whatsoever about the subject of the article.

When speaking of morals in the roman classical period, if you do not include
a list of what was then considered as normal (pedophilia was, just to name
one thing), most readers will get the word as "what is normal NOW". And no
one will ever understand the deep affective meaning of a phrase like "tu
quoque Brute, fili mii". It's exactly when speaking of different
times/cultures that you need to give a clear picture of what local normality
was. When you make an article on the american Weathermen movement you cannot
simply say they were "left wings". Because the north american concept of
being a left-wing is extremely different even just from its european
equivalent, not to mention Africe and Asia.

If you do not specify a context in an extremely precise way, you end up in
creating confusion, instead of spreading knowledge. Besides, how are going
to describe the internal debate in the feminists' movements? If we simplify
their positions, they end up in being all the same, so it looks like
different positions were due to ego-trips only. Leadership IS a matter, in
describing the evolution of political/philosophical movements, but it cannot
be awarded with a monopolistic role. Same applies to any history of the
protestant movement, unless we want to just say they were "heretics". Just
in the way we need to mention gravity, when speaking of physics, we need to
mention phenomena that were at the very base of the construction process of
an opinion/idea/ideal. We are going to have a very hard time in explaining
why the Christian revolution took over the classical world, unless we
explain its implied social consequences (the role of widows and the chance
for slaves to get a human-like burial, just to name a couple of them).
Things are always complicated. Making them look simpler it's the best way to
tell blatant lies.

> What I meant by being exclusive, is that we are
> not going to give arguments why stones don't fly, counterarguments why
> in some cases stones do fly and counter-counterarguments why even in
> those cases stones don't fly.

Well, obviously not. I thought the whole discussion was started to deal with
cases in which a part of the debate is totally removed. Depth of details may
be chosen depending on what support they offer for further deepening of the
matter, as long as all relevant details are there. That is: "there was a
[[debate about flying stones]]", in which one shall explain what happened,
and give the reader a flavour of the scientific thought during those times.
No more than this. Takes a few strokes and does not hide anything. Text
remains readable, who is not interested in flying stones can simply avoid
the subject.

> A wiki is a collection of knowledge, not a collection of arguments and
> opinions.

Is there any difference among the two? A scientific theory is no more than a
theory. That is, a useful OPINION. Until we can use it to make computations
we do use it, then we throw it away to use a more suitable opinion.

> But not
> in arguing for or against them, not even if we do both at the same
> time.
Put my signature here, too. Our role is into referring the matter, not into
jumping in the discussion. BUT... by choosing waht to say and what to omit
(like it or not), we do become an active part in the discussion. It's
unavoidable, and it must be managed. This is why I oppose using the term
NPOV altoghether. There simply isn't any such thing, so we cannot lie to
ourselves and to the readers.

> Should we say that Von Däniken claims that aliens
> helped build the pyramid of Gizeh? Yes. But do it on [[Erich von
> Däniken]], and not on [[Egyptian pyramids]].
Well... mostly, I'd build a cross reference table on [[pyramid]], and point
the guys to all interesting sections, from technology [[lever]] to
alternative science [[Von Däniken]]. And I would not forget history
[[Napoleon]]. No need to write about this extensively in the article, just
give the people a way to dig out what they look for. Then it's up to then to
decide.

> And any evidence given by
> Von Däniken in favor of his claims, or by Sagan and archaeologists
> against it, needs only be mentioned fleetingly if at all, to come back
> to my previous point.

They belong in the [[Von Däniken]] article, and should be properly covered
there. Not censored or excluded, but simply orderly treated in the right
place. Personally I'd never read [[Von Däniken]] , but this does not mean it
cannot bring readers and potential contributors in. Any article is a hook,
by which we fish fresh readers and contributors. [[playstation]] and [[Da
vinci code]] will get you in much more people than [[epistemology]]. Yet, a
small percent of those guys may end up in knowing what [[epistemology]] is,
even starting their surf from [[playstation]]. This is way all correct
information is useful, although I repeat, often the problem is that one
begins to write [[Von Däniken]] text right in the middle of [[pyramid]].
Which is not undued weight, but a plain context error, which does not
require censorship, but simply a new indipendent page. That's nothing but my
humble POV, obviously. :)

Bèrto