I have to say, I disagree pretty heavily with the interpretation of
both NPOV and NOR you are putting forward here.
Let us take a concrete example -- say, German's wartime project to
develop nuclear weapons/energy. What should the article say on the
subject, in an ideal world? There are at least two separate scholarly
narratives on the subject (one which says "the scientists purposely
didn't built Hitler an atomic bomb" and one which says "the scientists
just didn't get around to it for various reasons, but weren't taking a
strong moral stance"), and while I think one is more popular than the
other (the latter mentioned) among scholars, there is no clear
understanding of consensus or even which has the more prominent
scholars behind it (there are sharp and well-respected people behind
both approaches, and of course a requisite middle ground where most
people live).
How to proceed? In my understanding of NPOV, the article should do a
good job of representing both scholarly opinions and the evidences
both cite. It should mention that there is a scholarly debate. It
should perhaps mention a brief history of the debate, if germane (i.e.
Heisenberg's misquoted letter in Jungk's book, Bohr's angry reply,
leading all the way up up to the _Copenhagen_ play).
There are, of course, more fringe theories all over the internet, as
there are with anythign relating to Nazis, atomic bombs, or physics.
These don't have any currency in mainstream sources and there is not
even a consistent fringe conspiracy theory. As such, I don't think
they should be represented in the article -- they are not
"significant" POVs, which is to say, they are not "POVs significantly
represented in the public understanding of this subject." If there
were one overriding or popular conspiracy theory, it should get a
mention commensurate with its representation in the larger community
of knowledge (i.e., the Apollo moon landing conspiracy is a well-known
phenomena in and of itself, so it gets it own article).
That's MY understanding of NPOV, which reduces knowledge and truth
statements to sociological statements -- who says what, how
representative the statement is of other actors, etc.
With this understanding of NPOV, then NOR falls into a similar spot
(and almost becomes No Original Opinions as well). If a source is not
accessible, it is likely not part of the mainstream understanding,
however you define "mainstream." Obscure sources, by their very
definition, are likely not part of this sociological understanding of
NPOV. Again, concurring with Matt Brown, if I found something that I
think was wrong about the mainstream historical account, I shouldn't
try to use Wikipedia as the staging point for this new understanding
-- I should try to publish it in a scholarly journal! After all, isn't
that what their domain is for? That is, I should turn the statement
into a "mainstream statement" (under a loose definition of
mainstream), at which point it becomes potentially subject for
Wikipedia inclusion.
I don't think Matt Brown meant "reporting the consensus" to mean
"creating a sense of consensus if there is none." I think he meant
more what I mean when I say "mainstream" -- statements or
understandings which have either enough "followers" (in a Latourian
sense) or have generated enough "attention" to warrant inclusion. The
"consensus in the field" on the German atomic bomb is a number of
stories which disagree with each other, in this model -- it is not one
of the stories over any other.
NOR (or again, NOO) means, along with the idea that I can't present my
own private "data", that I can't read a book on the subject, come to
radically different conclusions than the author, and then try to have
those (non-mainstream) conclusions represented in an encyclopedia
article. We rely on other sources (journals, academic disciplines,
communities of fringe believers) to develop their own "regimes of
truth" in the Foucauldian sense -- we only report on the "truth
statements" they generate, if their communities are "notable" enough
to warrant inclusion. (Such notability, as always, will be somewhat
arbitrary and will always be in flux, but that's not new to this
question.)
At least, that's how I understand the policies.
FF
On 6/7/05, steven l. rubenstein <rubenste(a)ohiou.edu> wrote:
Matt Brown wrote some thoughtful comments, some of
which I deeply disagree
with:
MO, those would only be legitimate sources to cite
if the subject
itself is obscure and known only to specialists. If it's a well-known
subject, it would make more sense to use mainstream sources on the
subject.
Yes and no. One reason for citing sources is so that readers who want to
know more (or check facts) can go to the sources. In this sense, I do
agree with Matt that it is important to provide sources that anyone who is
on-line and has access to
Amazon.com, or access to a good library, can find.
But I disagree with Matt's distinction between "obscure subject" and other
subjects. A subject that is not obscure, for example the Holocaust or the
Bible or the U.S. Civil War, obviously has loads of popular and easily
acceptable sources we can cite. But there is always ongoing academic
research, and much important and relevant information will come from
relatively obscure sources. This is precisely the material we want to
include in a high-quality encyclopedia, even if the cited sources are hard
to find.
If the obscure source is indeed important, it will
at least
have been cited by someone else. If, for example, you find an obscure
source on the Holocaust that is not cited in any mainstream work on the
Holocaust, it would be original research to begin to build an argument
based on it.
Matt, this is just 100% wrong. You simply do not understand our NOR
policy. It would violate our policy to "build an argument" on any source,
"mainstream" as well as "obscure." But adding material, including
published data, published explanations, published interpretations, is NOT
"original research" if it comes from sources that are, however obscure,
reputable.
(If you thought mainstream Holocaust historians
were
ignoring some obscure but credible and important source, that would be
an issue to take up with them; we're just here to report the consensus
in the field, not to create it.)
Again, 100% wrong. We are not here to report the consensus. As a matter
of fact, one of the most important functions of our NPOV policy is to
ensure that diverse views (and if they are diverse, they obviously do not
represent a consensus) . We report on different views, provide the proper
sources, and any context about the sources that can help readers evaluate
the views being represented. "Consensus" hotonly has nothing to do with
it, it is antithetical to what we stand for.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l