NPOV and credibility (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Original research)

Mon Dec 13 01:06:35 UTC 2004

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
> Not "more popular" -- "in proportion to their representation among
> experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties" -- credibility
> is an inherent part of this judgment.

But that IS about who is more popular. We don't take each individual 
scientist, evaluate how good they are, and decide to rank their views 
according to that. Instead we shotgun it and say nearly everyone 
believes Albert not Gertie, so we'll declare him the winner.

At a more abstract level, I don't see why you think we can even evaluate 
credibility. You point out how we can't evaluate theories well because 
we're notnecessarily qualified to do so, and I agree with that. But if 
we can't evaluate those theories, how can we evaluate how well the 
people who do evaluate those theories are doing? That's what makes 
someone credible: they get things right. But if we can't work out what's 
right, how can we tell if they're getting it right?

Popularity. It's a popularity contest.

It's also a  popularity contest on other levels. A typical edit war 
starts when person A believes source or view X while person B believes 
source or view Y. Which source or view is the most "credible"? Well, 
it's whichever one gets the most people turning up to support it on the 
talk page! If consensus isn't going to happen, it's always going to end 
up in a "vote": whether formal or informal.

Jimbo, I think we basically agree, except that you think what's written 
is the way things really work. I'm all for keeping crackpots off 
wikipedia, but I don't think the current policy lets us. That they're 
mostly kept off is despite policy, not because of it. Unfortunately I 
also think our current means of dealing with it (throw it to a 
popularity contest) probably keeps off legitimate minority views too.

Shane.