Shane King wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:06:15AM -0800, Mark Richards
wrote:
Hi - ok, let me give an example. Let's suppose
that
the religious right were able to muster a relatively
small number of people to edit here on the evolution
pages. Are you saying that, if there are a large
number of people editing on the 'side' of that, then
it should go in?
If not, can you clarify what you did mean?
Well, there are a few scenarios here:
If what they're putting in is something they can demonstrate is believed
by a large number of people (ie the wider community, and not just the
few editing), and they write it in such as way that it doesn't violate
the NPOV policy, then yes.
If they fail to write to the NPOV policy, then what they're saying
should still go in, but it will need to be reworked.
If they're pushing a very minority point of view that's not widely held
in the greater community, then it's probably one of the few cases where
the fact that there are a large number of people on one side isn't
indicative of the validity of their additions.
The reference to a tiny marginal minority only confuses the issue when
it comes to creationism. Whether we agree with what they say or not we
can't ignore the fact that a lot of people do believe that way.
When one harbours the conceit that one is right, as is often the case in
scientism it is much more difficult to write from the NPOV. The
phrasing of your comments on the matter suggests that only those with a
view contrary to that of orthodox science are prone to POV writing.
NPOV is far more an attitude towards one's writing than a policy. An
important idea is often cheapened when it is set in policy. If an
article on evolution happens to have a small section explaining how the
beliefs of a creationist vary from those of an evolutionist that's
fine. They don't need for an evolutionist to carry on at great length
about how creationists have fallen into error. A single paragraph is
often enough. At the same time there should be no need to "rework" that
paragraph to the point where it no longer fairly represents what
creatonists are really saying. And there is no need to elaborate at
length about why creationists are wrong. Let their words speak for
themselves.
My point isn't that the number of editors believing
a point of view
makes it valid to go in the article. My point was that if we have a
large number of editors thinking something should go in the article, and
only one person against it, then more often than not the majority is
going to be right. It's just simple probability, if you think about it.
Was it not Mark Twain who commented about "lies, damn lies, and
statistics." :-)
Ec