[WikiEN-l] My views on policies and debates over content

Fri Jun 10 05:13:35 UTC 2005

The idea that a NPOV policy based on "significance" (however fuzzy)
would necessarily translate into one based on "majority rule" (as if
only one POV could be represented in any given article, anyway) would
lead to a destruction of all articles on religion and the creation of
a wholly "liberal POV Wikipedia" is a pretty sad strawman...

FF 

On 6/9/05, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> > > The other point was that WP is (or wants to be) an
> > > encyclopaedia, and that some POVs have to be excluded. The
> > > way we do that is by assessing how much (academic) support
> > > they have, in terms of the context and subject matter.
> > > There's no need for content committees, as long as consensus
> > > decisions on WP:NPOV can be acheieved (mediation) and
> > > enforced (arbitration).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Bain
> >
> > If the decision on excluded POVs is made on the basis of how much
> > support they have, we will quickly turn toward a regime of censorhip of
> > unpopular views.
> >
> > * We won't even be able to MENTION that a minority of
> >   scientists contacted by the UN's climate panel (IPCC)
> >   disagree with the "consensus" that anthropogenic emissions
> >   are causing excessive atmospheric warming.
> >
> 
> That's not what I meant. I'll quote Jimbo again (as appearing on WP:NPOV):
> 
> * 1 If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to
> substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
> * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be
> easy to name prominent adherents;
> * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited)
> minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some
> ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and
> regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
> 
> So using your example, the majority of the IPCC adivsers say
> anthropogenic emissions cause global warming, and they come under #1.
> The minority who disagree come under #2, as long as you can name them,
> and for practical purposes, perhaps cite a source in which they made
> this claim. If just one scientist came out and said that that global
> warming is caused by aliens, for example, then that would fall under
> #3, since one scientist is a vastly limited minority.
> 
> I've never said that only one POV should be represented, only that
> extreme minority POVs shouldn't be.
> 
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>