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

Mon Dec 13 17:04:30 UTC 2004

Ray Saintonge wrote:

> I agree that that article is dreadful.  To begin with it is sprinkled 
> throughout with with words like "supposed" or "alleged" which if 
> repeated tend to bias the commentary, and certainly detract from the 
> flow of the text.  Expressions  like "ESP's critics, a group that 
> includes most mainstream scientists," is a gratuitous reference to the 
> authority of scientists.  I think that it would be closer to the truth 
> to say that most scientists have never paid any serious attention to 
> ESP, so that the basis which that majority criticizes ESP is its own 
> lack of knowledge.  That to me is not very reassuring.  Many articles 
> would be much better if the science lobby started to show some 
> restraint.  A single well-written paragraph can more than adequately 
> represent the views of the detractors.  Trying to debunk concepts that 
> have never been proven, with equally questionable data only makes for 
> an article full of sniping.   The average reader does not choose to 
> read the article to watch the sniping.

I agree with that approach.  Most people do not take ESP seriously, and 
so it's not necessary to beat them over the head every other sentence 
with "but, ESP is actually a bunch of cranks!!!".  I imagine if I were 
looking for an article on ESP, I would want to know what people who 
believe it is true think about it, and why, and so on.  Of course it 
should also be mentioned that the vast majority of scientists think it's 
nonsense, and that the few purported scientific studies to demonstrate 
it have been roundly criticized.

Mostly I think tone is a big issue.  When I read an article and it 
sounds to me like whoever wrote it is trying to push a point of view, it 
irritates me, even if I agree with the point of view.  Think, "does this 
sound like it's written by someone with strong feelings on the 
subject?", and if so, why, and how can we change that?

-Mark