User:Dominic Mayers/A conservatism enriched by progressivism in Wikipedia

Descartes through “innate reason”, Kant through “a priori” and Popper through “critical discussions” rejected the idea that progress relies entirely on external sources. They opposed their thesis to a dogmatic conservatism that they saw or feared to see in the academic, religious or political paradigms of their time. In these theses, innate reason, apriori and critical discussions are necessary bases for progress: external sources are not enough. Empiricists such as John Locke opposed these rationalist theses.

A strongly held view on Wikipedia, in opposition to but ignoring these theses, says that it is not required to reason beyond the "best" sources about what information is most relevant or what information is missing from an article. Instead one should simply follow these sources. In this view, UNDUE, BALANCE (based on these best sources) and a neutral tone is considered sufficient. This view usually leads to a phase of great progress in the creation of articles, but only within rigid paradigms.

A view consistent with rationalism is that to be useful to readers, an article must provide all relevant information, describe debates, provide arguments, attribute opinions, etc. The topic must remain specific to help readers find information quickly and allow Wikipedians to develop the topic in depth without creating an overly large article. This goes beyond an editorial process that uses only UNDUE, BALANCE and an unbiased tone: it requires actively seeking out all relevant informations and presenting them. This view is progressive and non-conservative in that it calls upon a methodology that goes beyond a mechanical use of sources, for example, by welcoming critical discussions when necessary.

The opposition between these two Wikipedian philosophies is a conservatism/progressivism type debate which generalizes the empiricism/rationalism debate observed for more than 400 years in the history of science. Conservatism and progressivism are philosophies or theories of knowledge, not means of classifying and judging Wikipedians into two groups that we would call conservatives and progressives. If we talk about conservatives or progressives, it is in relation to a context or it is simply a way of describing philosophy by embodying it in people.

The essay proposes that a majority conservatism with its dogmatic application of rules, such as the rule of proportion and impartial tone, should be at the forefront on Wikipedia, while progressivism, like the legend "E pur si muove", is harmoniously hidden in the talk pages. As long as conservatism allows simple collaboration for the majority, there is no point in opposing it. The emphasis is instead placed on the importance of critical discussion in the talk pages. The essay explains the conservatism/progressivism debate in order to bring about a better institutionalization (that is to say, integration into our rules) of critical discussion, because otherwise it risks not being well conducted in talk pages and even perceived like a disruption of Wikipedia.

The attribution of points of view plays no particular role in this essay, as it can be applied both progressively and conservatively. For example, when it is used mechanically and not on a case-by-case basis, then it becomes conservatism.

Basic Concepts

Before defining conservatism and progressivism, we must first present a vision of the process of creation or discovery of laws. The essay uses the term “law” in its broadest sense that encompasses both ethical laws and laws of nature.

Unification of ethical laws and laws of nature

A law can be ethical, for example do not steal from others, or natural, for example Newton's law of universal gravitation. These two notions have in common that they are neither totally arbitrary nor totally absolute. If parents dictate to their children that they should not put their hand on the fire, this is not completely arbitrary, even if it remains their choice. Likewise, the law of universal gravitation is certainly not arbitrary, but neither is it absolute. It is not just that we now know, thanks to Einstein, that as a universal law it is false, only approximately true at low speed and low mass. The law is arbitrary in a much more shocking way. There is no way to prove this law logically, that is to say, at the level of a language, from statements which describe observations. It should be added to this that we cannot be absolutely certain of the validity of observation statements. So, there was an arbitrariness, a human choice, in the adoption of Newton's law of universal gravitation.

In the essay, only this property of laws of not being totally arbitrary nor dogmatically absolute will be used. The fact that arbitrariness in ethical laws seems more fundamental than in laws of nature will only make the essay more relevant. We will therefore be justified in using a general notion of law which unifies these two senses of the term.

The three types of Wikipedian laws

Wikipedian laws are ethical, not laws of nature. They are divided into three types.

• Laws about sources. It is then a question of their reliability. We will say, for example, that if a source is contradicted by too many primary sources, it is unreliable.
• Laws about the correct use of sources. It is then a question of rules such as neutrality of point of view and verifiability.
• Laws about the content itself. It is then a question of relevance. We will say, for example, that a religious point of view is not relevant in an article on mathematics.

There is a certain arbitrariness in these three types of laws. These are community choices. This is not to say that these laws are completely arbitrary and that there is no room for rational discussion to manage the arbitrariness that exists in them.

A priori reason under each type of laws

For each type of law, there are the laws as such and the judgment which was used to discover or create these laws and which remains necessary for their assessment thereafter. Rational discussion requires judgment to discover or create laws. These two levels coexist. Conservatism downplays the importance of judgment. Progressivism, in contrast, values ​​judgment, but because judgment is used to establish and support laws, the progressive does not reject their importance. Descartes called this judgment reason or common sense. We will call it a priori reason in order to distinguish it from a posteriori reason which is found in the mechanical application of laws.

Conservatism/progressivism

Conservatism and progressivism are philosophies about the "correct" way to treat sources of information. These philosophies differ by the role given to a priori reason, by their vision of this level and by the objective of the treatment of sources.

The conservative downplays the importance of a priori reason in information processing. For example, when the sources are documents (not scientific instruments), he considers that mastering the language of these sources is sufficient. To make this possible, the treatment goal will be adjusted accordingly. For example, the objective will be that the result of the processing is a “transcription” of what is in the sources. In the case of complex sources, it may be necessary to read several sources to master the subject, but, from this conservative point of view, this remains at the level of the sources and does not particularly require a priori reason. In other words, for a conservative, the correct way is mechanical, just as, for example, reading a text can be considered mechanical.

The belief in a mechanical method that uses only external sources as a resource and downplays the importance of a priori reason is what characterizes the conservative. The conservative will say that there is nothing more rational than using the laws. He sees the level of a priori reason as a mysterious, metaphysical, philosophical level, etc. which has no place in the method.

It is not the precision in the formulation of laws that characterizes the conservative. The conservative can, on the contrary, be content with informal rules as long as they can be applied mechanically. This may seem contradictory, but there is no contradiction because the rules can be considered well established in practice while still being informal.

The progressive does not adopt the simple or simplistic view of the conservative. Among other things, he or she considers a more complex objective. For example, in the Wikipedian context, he or she considers the task of rejecting unreliable sources and determining relevant content. This goes beyond a simple transcription of a text. The progressive further considers that the required a priori are not necessarily accessible mechanically from the available sources. In addition, the progressive considers that certain contents of a priori reason can negatively interfere in the processing of sources. All this makes the use of a method necessary. For example, for Descartes, the method of doubt is required to properly use what he calls reason or common sense. For Popper, it is critical discussion.

The rejection of the belief in a mechanical method using only external sources to achieve the goal and remove obstacles is what characterizes the progressive.

The conservative partly agrees with the progressive on the need to eliminate obstacles when he recognizes that the mechanical method can fail when the sources are complex and the effort to understand them well is not made, but he only agrees with him partially, because for the progressive it is necessary to use a specific methodology which is based on a priori reason.

. The conservative does not deny the existence of a priori reason, but the mechanical method based on external sources that he proposes is supposed to minimize its influence, without having to modify or supplement it. If it is necessary to modify the method to take into account the level of a priori reason, it becomes progressivism.

We are all progressives

No one really believes in a completely mechanical way of discovering laws in science or writing a Wikipedia article. A person will lean conservative in certain circumstances, but we are all progressives to different degrees.

Conservatism/progressivism in Wikipedia via an example: the basketball inventor

James Naismith is famously known as the inventor of basketball. All encyclopedia with an entry on him says that. Yet, this is not like a scientific law that has been tested again and again, and is thus strongly grounded on technologies and associated observations. It is an isolated fact, which somehow has become important. The main premise behind that fact is that the original documents and testimonies that verify it are trustworthy. If we don't trust them, the whole thing falls apart. In the case of a scientific law, anyone can repeat the tests, but not here. It is even more shaky than that, because there is no way to tell for sure that someone did not invent the same game before. Perhaps documents that show that someone else previously invented the game were destroyed. Another premise is that this did not happen. In accordance with these premises. the Wikipedia entry on James Naismith says that he is "the inventor of the game of basketball."

That story would not illustrate much, if it was not for the fact that sources are challenging the premises behind it. People in New York State, especially in Herkimer, have adopted a completely different paradigm: they rely on different sources with a different story. In that other paradigm, it is wrong that Naismith invented the game alone. For some, the inventor is not Naismith, but Lambert Will in Herkimer.

Progressivism is not necessarily associated with the vision that Lambert Will invented basketball. It can be associated with the view that Naismith is the inventor. It depends more on the attitude towards the current paradigm than on the paradigm itself. Progressivism and conservatism are philosophies about the role of a priori reason, not points of view on the content of sources. If a Wikipedian has lived in Herkimer and thinks that one can simply and obviously infer from the sources that Lambert Will is the inventor, he is not a progressive, but a conservative. Progressive philosophy says that in general the sources are not sufficient, it requires another element which comes, for example, with critical discussion.

Neither progressives nor conservatives are the ones who are necessarily right about the content. Conservatives, especially when they are in the majority, can in principle and are possibly often right to follow the sources they judge to be the best. This may be the case, when it is written in the article that James Naismith is the inventor of basketball. In particular, conservatives may be right to reject an attribution which would relativize a point of view clearly stated in all encyclopedias. A progressive accepts this because he thinks, by definition, that nothing is mechanically fixed in the sources, including the need for attribution.

The progressive thinks that conservatives are wrong to claim that their point of view is evidently and mechanically found in the sources, but this is an opposition at the philosophical level, not at the level of the content itself. The progressive only says that we must remain open to critical discussion on the talk page. He is opposed to intimidation, abuse of power, etc., but, within the framework of a healthy discussion where everyone gives their arguments, he accepts that the article gives the point of view as understood by the majority.

It is possible that more prominent and reliable sources will present a new paradigm and conservative content will be called into question. A progressive attitude then becomes even more useful. The bottom line is that it is not an opposition to conservative content, but a way to come to the rescue.

The solution to authoritarianism and abuse of power

To be practical, the solution provided by progressivism must rely on the laws or the method such as critical discussions which serves to establish these laws. A priori reason by itself seems too abstract and informal to constitute a practical solution. The idea of ​​the essay is therefore to promote critical discussion and indirectly Wikipedian laws or rules, but in the right way.

Let's return to the example of the inventor of basketball. To defend the point of view that James Naismith is the inventor, some will argue that Wikipedia's rules clearly require respecting the content of encyclopedias and other reliable sources. They will add that the sources that defend Lambert Will's cause are unreliable or of too small a proportion to be considered.

There is another perspective which judges this first perspective to be biased, disrespectful of Wikipedian rules. In this alternative perspective, the rules require that we do not assert the view that Naismith is the inventor as truth, but rather attribute it to the vast majority of sources.

Either perspective is conservative if it rejects the importance of critical discussion.

A conservative majority acting in good faith

Suppose that a conservative majority happens to adopt in good faith the first perspective, the one in which Naismith is known as the inventor of basketball, and that conservatism there is so intense that any discussion of it is seen as disruptive. We will consider separately below the case of a malicious majority.

Those who have adopted the other perspective, the one where Lambert Will is the inventor, have two ways of responding to this dogmatic conservatism. The first is to consider that critical discussion is necessary and to ignore or feign ignorance that it is seen as disruptive. In this first way, when we realize, possibly with great dismay, that this is perceived as a disturbance, it is natural to look for explanations. The explanation will be, for example, that the majority did not follow the rules of Wikipedia and that the fault lies in the ambiguity in the rules. The difficulty with this explanation is that, by definition, the conservatives we oppose consider the rules to be clear. According to them, the rules may not be clear in the official text, but they are clear in practice. These conservatives may even accuse their opponent of wikilawyering. Generally speaking, the problem with this first way is that it ignores the conservative aspect and its consequence: direct critical discussion will encounter opposition.

Faced with such explanations of the difficulties linked to the majority conservative vision, the minority conservative reaction is simply to see this as a challenge to be resolved directly, without resorting to deep explanations. The minority conservative does not see the point in delving deeper into the issue in terms of a priori reason and progressivism. The difficulty with this simplistic conservative vision is that it brings us back to the first way of responding to majority conservatism, which consists of entering into the critical discussion head first.

The other way, the second way, is to directly attack dogmatic conservatism by valuing progressivism instead of just diving head first into critical discussions. It goes into more detail in the two philosophies, for example, by situating them in history. This does not require that all Wikipedians understand both philosophies and collaborate. It only requires the collaboration of as many Wikipedians as necessary so that respect for critical discussion is institutionalized.

A malicious majority

It remains to consider the case of a malicious majority. This case can be seen as a simple and direct criticism of the essay which consists of saying that the conservatism/progressivism debate simply has nothing to do with the real problem. There are three responses to this criticism. The least interesting of the three is that this does not respect the rule requiring the assumption of good faith. The second, a little more interesting, is that a malicious majority of Wikipedians in writing an article does not invalidate the solution proposed above, which is still valid, because it only requires an institutionalization that values ​​critical discussion in the community. The third and most interesting response rejects the notion that an ill-intentioned majority has nothing to do with the conservatism/progressivism debate. On the contrary, a priori reason must be considered the source of our good intentions, more than the rules themselves, because the latter were determined by discussion with no other source than a priori reason. A truly ill-intentioned person will not be inspired by this important role of critical discussion and a priori reason, but no person is entirely ill-intentioned and the solution proposed above will be effective to some degree. This may seem weak, but the other option, confrontation, only works if you are the majority and this is not really a solution.

Conservatism/progressivism in history

The example of the inventor of basketball is simple. Conservatives and progressives on Wikipedia probably already have their opinions about this example. Nevertheless, it illustrates the type of opinions that are questioned by progressists such as the best sources to use, the overall organization of different areas of knowledge or points of view and the place of each area or point of view within this grand painting. The aim of the essay is to give a much broader perspective on this situation prevailing on Wikipedia. The same mechanisms have been at work for more than 800 years, perhaps even since man communicated through language, but the essay only covers 800 years, especially the last 400 years in which these mechanisms are found in the empiricism/rationalism debate.

The essay explains this debate in a way that can be shocking: each philosophy is presented using its own perspective as the one that wins the debate. This approach is chosen because it allows for a better understanding of the challenge.

The empiricism/rationalism debate

Every discipline or school of thoughts uses its own language and premises to communicate about its practical concerns. This creates boundaries between disciplines or schools. Human beings break these boundaries, because they have in common a same basic intelligence. Thomas Kuhn says this requires a paradigm shift. It does not come easily. This intelligence must transcend logical deduction. It requires intuition and creativity. It is innate reason in Descartes, a priori or transcendental knowledge in Kant. Popper says it is awaken through critical discussions. The need for this basic intelligence to understand the world is proclaimed in rationalism, but historically rejected in empiricism.

Empiricists such as John Locke in the XVIIe century and Bertrand Russell in the XXe century reject the metaphysical views of contemporary or previous philosophers. Locke rejects the metaphysical concept of reason presented as a source of knowledge by Descartes. Similarly, Russell strongly rejects the notion of a priori or transcendental knowledge proposed by Kant. Similarly, nowadays, when someone says that he is an empiricist, he means that he uses the scientific method to obtain laws that are generalizations of observations. The empiricist implies that metaphysical knowledge or religious views play no role in this approach.

On the other hand, rationalists have in common that they suggest that knowledge is not gained only through observations. Some inner source of creativity, truth or reason was needed to discover new scientific laws. More precisely, they define themselves as the opponent of the following empiricist view. In this view, the mind has a simple Lockean internal structure that is transformed by observations in accordance with fixed simple mechanical laws. If we were to equate these internal laws with reason and creativity, it would not be that empiricism anymore, but rationalism. Thus, this empiricist view says that the growth of knowledge is explained by simple fixed internal laws of the mind, which process observations. David Hume is well known to have explained problems that arise when we propose such laws. Moreover, no such laws have been found in the last hundred years. Yet, this view was actually proposed by some empiricists such as Locke as a way to oppose rationalism. In this way, one can say that rationalism won the debate, at the least against this definition of empiricism.

This rejected empiricist can be said to be dogmatic, because it makes strong suppositions about the mind. It is a dogmatic tool used by rationalists to suggest metaphysical conclusions. It is a contradiction, because empiricists reject metaphysical knowledge. Moreover, the scientific method itself is still used, scientific laws are still generalizations of individual observations and metaphysical knowledge are still viewed as dubious. In this way, the empiricists have not lost the debate and are still well alive. In other words, rationalists have defined themselves as the opponents of some empiricist view and they have won the associated debate. In reality, empiricists are simply not interested in metaphysical knowledge and they do not go further than that. In this perspective, they have not lost any debate.

Generalization to the conservatism/progressivism debate

Paradigm shifts in science reminded philosophers that this dogmatic empiricism fails. It is useful to consider and generalize this failing dogmatic empiricism, because even though it is not today empiricism, it presents a useful caricatural view of what existed in the history of science. This dogmatic empiricism can be generalized to any dogmatic adoption of a language and premises that are used to explore the world. Being not attached to empirical observations, this conservatism is more general. Progressivism in this generalized view is the view that, on the contrary, it is necessary to regularly adopt new languages ​​and new premises to better understand the world and that there is no simple mechanical method for this.

An anti-authoritarian use of history

The proposed solution to authoritarianism and abuse of power is based on progressivism. The difficulty is that progressivism also applies to itself, that is, there is no mechanical way to convince someone that progressivism is the right philosophy. Likewise, progressivism applies to rationalism and there is no mechanical way to convince someone that rationalism is the right philosophy. This is how each of the two philosophies, conservatism and progressivism, as is the case for empiricism and rationalism, is able to win from its own perspective.

For example, a conservative could criticize the proposed solution by saying that Wikipedia is simple and we don't need philosophies. He will say that critical discussion is necessary, but that this too is simple and does not require philosophies. Worse still, the conservative may say that even critical discussion, except for minor differences, is not necessary. If we see problems, he will say that it is simply that there are Wikipedians who do not understand what is nevertheless simple. This is typical of conservatism. A conservative wins according to his perspective by rejecting progressivism which uses mysterious, philosophical, metaphysical, etc. aspects.

The progressive can only respond from his perspective. He will say that it is false that a substantive critical discussion is not necessary, but will also say that direct confrontation through critical discussion at the level of established laws and their application (the articles) is not the solution either. Instead, we must combat the primary argument of dogmatic conservatism which is that everything is in the sources and in mechanical rules, an argument which says that every other resource is mysterious, philosophical, metaphysical, etc. and must be rejected. The notion of a priori reason is only a way of capturing in a general way what is rejected by dogmatic conservatism.

The aim of considering history is to illustrate the role of a priori reason, but it should be kept in mind that there is no mechanical way to convince someone that progressivism is the right philosophy. History here only serves to awaken the a priori reason of the present reader in relation to authoritarianism and abuse of power. The opposite would have been surprising: how an authoritarian approach, which attempts to impose itself logically instead of proposing, could support a philosophy which denies that this is possible. The essay could have used a completely fictitious story to achieve its goal, It is somewhat what it does by presenting a caricature of this story.

Aristotelian conservatism from the 12th to the 17th century and the progressivism of Descartes

The scientific revolution of the 17th century marked the end of Aristotelian scholasticism which was a form of conservatism. Different forms of skepticisms had already challenged the Aristotelian view, but, as noted by Edward Grant, Aristotelianism remained mainstream: "From the time the works of Aristotle entered western Europe in the late twelfth century until perhaps 1600, or 1650, Aristotelianism provided not only the mechanisms of explanation for natural phenomena, but served as a gigantic filter through which the world was viewed and pictured."

It is not that the scientific revolution period was in itself progressive. Progressivism is seen in the rejection of the current paradigm. A scientific theory by itself is not progressive. It is the view that the previous theory was not sufficient that is progressive. Once we adopt and stick dogmatically to the new theory, we are again conservative.

Descartes's method of doubt and his notion of reason were his tools to reject Aristotelian conservativism. Descartes describes reason has the influence of the divine in us. Not because of this religious aspect, but because it opposes a mechanical explanation of scientific discovery, it was progressive. It is not said here that Descartes was explicitly opposed to dogmatic empiricism. It was rather empiricists like John Locke, who would later oppose empiricism to Descartes, who himself opposed his philosophy to Aristotelianism. In opposition to the probable propositions of Aristotelian dialectic, Descartes associated the laws that he proposed with certainty, but he knew that they were not the final words.

Empiricist conservatism from the 17th to the 20th century and Kant's and Popper's progressivism

However, the scientific revolution of the XVIIe century gave birth to a new form of conservativism. It was a time where we could use observations through telescopes, microscopes and even naked eyes to test new laws that could be expressed in the new mathematics of the time. The discovery of these laws required something similar to what Descartes calls "reason", but empiricists such as Locke believed that, on the contrary, the laws were discovered through a systematic process that was mostly guided by observations and nothing like Descartes' reason was needed. Newton claimed that his laws could be logically deduced from Kepler's laws. This dogmatism brought in the XVIIe or XVIIIe century its own myths and legends such as the "E pur si muove" legend. It was dogmatic, but yet a time of great progress for science. This dogmatic attitude allowed to focus on the current paradigm without questioning its basis.

The conservatism of the empiricists was challenged by David Hume who is well known to have presented the problem of induction in the "Crisis of the Enlightenment" and this led to Kant's rationalism. Approximatively one hundred years later in the 20th century, a similar crisis with logical empiricism led to Popper's critical rationalism. Popper says that Kant's rationalism was limited, because it could not explain the theory of General Relativity of Einstein, which could hardly be anticipated by Kant. Yet, Popper was strongly influenced by Kant.

The balance between conservatism and progressivism

It might be fair to mention here that Descartes' notion of reason was metaphysical and even associated with a proof of the existence of God.  It is as if as soon as we insist on having an explanation, we must choose between dogmatic conservatism or metaphysical progressivism. Even just asking the question of how we progress while asserting that we don't have an answer is already a position with a progressive inclination. We must deny the importance of the question to avoid both dogmatic conservatism and metaphysical progressivism. Even still, one could classify a systematic rejection of the question as a form of dogmatism. The conservative blames the progressive for going on the side of metaphysics while the progressive blames the conservative for going on the side of dogmatism and authoritarianism.

A feature of conservatism is a rejection of the creative process that could challenge its fixed language and premises. The conservative says that new knowledge must be found in some external sources, not in internal creativity called reason or otherwise. The conservative usually have some criterion for the best sources. This was clearly seen in the Aristotelian conservatism, which insisted that classical Aristotelian texts and commentaries must be used in University teachings. It was seen in a different manner in the conservativism of the empiricists who insisted that knowledge comes from observations, using some internal process, of course, but a simple one without unexplained internal mechanism. Another feature of conservatism is that it always reach a crisis either because it fails to establish its basis or because it is challenged by some new paradigm (or both) and this crisis leads to the recurrence of a progressivist perspective.

The neutral point of view inside Wikipedia

Within the restricted framework of Wikipedia, understanding the world through observations is replaced by our understanding of the world through sources: the world, for Wikipedians, is seen through sources, not through scientific technology. Not all arguments in the empiricism/rationalism debate are valid when observations are replaced by published information, but one aspect seems to remain valid: there is no forced path or mechanical rules from one paradigm to another.

Wikipedians, progressives and conservatives, do not observe, that is, do not read, all the sources, but only the parts deemed relevant in the sources considered reliable according to their current paradigm. In this way, as is the case for scientific observations, these few Wikipedia observations or readings play a limited role in comparison with the role of the current paradigm. Universal laws are different. In one case, they concern scientific technologies, the theories governing them and observations, and seem to involve no ethics. In the other case, they relate to sources, Wikipedian rules and content, and involve ethics. However, the situation is not fundamentally different.

In this Wikipedian context, a paradigm shift requires a deepening of our understanding of the sources. Conservatives argue that any deepening of our understanding must rely solely on sources (some mechanical rules being implicit here), and not on a priori reason. Progressives disagree and argue that Wikipedians cannot read all sources in depth and therefore must navigate and position themselves in relation to the sources. Understanding therefore depends on two aspects, the sources and also the position adopted by Wikipedians. They must judge many factors such as the relevance and quality of sources, which requires reasoning as stated in rationalism and its generalization, progressivism.

A progressive adds to this that the rules for using sources, for example the need to attribute points of view, do not apply entirely mechanically. The rules themselves can be discussed by the community in the pages dedicated to this purpose. All this must appeal to a priori reason.

From Descartes to Popper, progressivists always recognized the importance of empirical data. Descartes applied his method in optics, meteorology and geometry. Kant presented his philosophy as a synthesis of the old rationalism and empiricism. Experimental data is fundamental in Popper's refutability. Similarly, the progressivist in Wikipedia's setting says that verifiability in sources is necessary, but it says that a priori reason is also necessary.

The essay proposes that progressivism does not oppose a majority conservativism and that it emphasizes instead an institutionalization of critical discussion so that it can be conducted harmoniously in talk pages dedicated to this purpose.

Give due weight and not taking sides outside Wikipedia

The request for “due weight” outside of Wikipedia, for example in court, aligns well with the neutral view on Wikipedia. For a Wikipedian, the equivalent of giving due weight to the facts, as a judge must do, is finding reliable sources for the topic in question and using them to write a good article. The goal of the Wikipedian is close to the goal of a scientist: he wants to describe the world using published sources as a technology of exploration. In science, debates revolve around the laws associated with available technologies. On Wikipedia the debates revolve around which sources are reliable and how they are reliable. To be neutral, Wikipedians must give due weight to all relevant viewpoints contained in reliable sources. A similar lesson can be drawn from the analogy of "not taking sides" in a legal context. The important point about the principle of giving due weight to sources and not taking sides, as understood outside of Wikipedia, is that it applies when questioning which sources are reliable, what content is relevant, etc., which are preliminary questions to ask before asking if the content has due weight. In this process, Wikipedians must position themselves in relation to the sources and this cannot be entirely determined by the sources.

The second meaning of due weight inside Wikipedia and its significance

Of course, English Wikipedians understand the usual meaning of "give due weight" and if they read "give due weight to all points of view", they understand that they should give them due consideration, but in Wikipedia there is an automatic extension of meaning: Wikipedians also understand that the place given to points of view in the article must correspond to the importance of the points of view in the sources. From a conservative perspective, especially when the "best" sources are fixed in advance, this second meaning eclipses the original meaning which proposes an active search for additional information in sources while avoiding bias in terms of their relevance and reliability.

The predominance of the second meaning is highly significant. This makes a big difference, because the usual meaning refers to the attention given to viewpoints in the editorial process, while the Wikipedia meaning refers to the end result of the article. In particular, in practice and in the text of the rule, UNDUE and BALANCE say nothing about the part of the editorial process which concerns the search for information and the complex question of the reliability of sources and their relevance.

Rejecting information does not mean that we are taking sides

In 2003, because the "include-info" aspect of not taking sides or neutral point of view policy could be misinterpreted and misused to include theories supported only by an extremely small minority, perhaps even nonsense theories, such as the flat earth theory, the no original research (NOR) policy was added to complement it. In 2005, the section "Undue and due weight ...", which is based on the 2003 statement of the NOR policy, was added to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Just like a judge is not taking sides when he applies the laws, Wikipedia is not taking sides when it applies the NOR policy. However, the NOR policy is not saying that progressivism is not allowed. It only says that it must occur withing sources. There is plenty of room for progressivism and the use of reason within the NOR policy. Yet, this progressiveness should not oppose the conservative tendency, which relies on UNDUE, BALANCE, etc. It should only come to the rescue when conservatism is in crisis.

Including information as a way of not taking sides

Not all information is a theory to be rejected using NOR. In an article on Earth, one must give the information that "the Earth has the shape of an ellipsoid with a circumference of approximately 40,000 km." Not doing so would be to take sides or a refusal to accept one's responsibilities as a Wikipedian: not taking sides applies to a process and, if the process did not take place, it is because we refused our responsibilities as a Wikipedian. Including this information means accepting one's responsibilities as a Wikipedian while not taking sides.

Conservativism without dogmatism

A difficulty often mentioned is that anybody can edit Wikipedia and, thus, we do not have the competence required to do complex search in reliable sources. This is why it is often said that an editorial process must ideally be restricted to a few "best" secondary sources on the subject, which we then follow. This is viewed as a way to avoid biases, which is referred to as POV pushing, in polemic subjects. This view is rooted in a basic perspective on the role of sources vs the role of a priori reason about them. The main thesis of the essay is that we should not oppose this conservative tendency. However, this thesis does not go as far as supporting dogmatically that tendency.

Dogmatic forms of a rejection of a priori reason

A dogmatic form taken by this request for a simple editorial process is the suggestion that one can determine which viewpoints to include and how much space to allocate to them in the article by a simple method to analyse the sources, which would be more systematic and less biased than the usual reading and understanding of these sources. There are wikipedians that want to believe in a magical method, because they are not comfortable with the natural complexity of the needed editorial process to find the relevant information to include. This is a generalisation of what has been said about dogmatic empiricism. If the goal is to evaluate the importance of a particular content in the articlnie, there is no magical method, because judgment is needed to weight the reliability of the sources and other factors.

Another example would be to claim there exists a precise rule for when a synthesis is original research. The English essay What SYNTH is not says no such rule exists. For example, an innocent alphabetical sorting of a list creates relationships not found in any source, but affirming an alphabetical order is not original research. A non-innocent way of sorting the list would be more problematic. The French essay Synthèse inédite says the article must not "implicitly assert a conclusion that is not thematically formulated by the cited source(s)" (emphasis added), but it refers to a different kind of implicit assertions. To illustrate well the situation, the example intended to be clearly no-original research, even if it asserts relationships not found in the sources. In general, a less obvious judgment is needed to determine when a synthesis is original research.

It is not always black and white. For example, in the french Wikipedia the following sentence was recently added in their citing sources guideline: "It is not recommended to introduce information or expressions from a point of view that cannot be easily controlled using sources." Clearly, there is an emphasis on simplicity in the process of using sources. Had it be said that the simple process can be mechanical, then it would have been dogmatic, just like as explained in the above paragraphs.

Conclusion

Many Wikipedians with the required talents to create good articles and improve existing ones are blocked or even banned, because critical discussion is not well conducted. A better understanding of the role of a priori reason and therefore of critical discussion aims to reduce dogmatic conservatism, which may be present as much among the majority who condemn as among the minority who are condemned. The essay remains at a general level and do not take sides, as this only becomes necessary when analyzing the cases individually. However, in general progressivism promotes tolerance, because the progressive understands that there is no mechanical method and values ​​a priori reason and thus critical discussion. A conservative will say it's simple and no philosophical study is required, but then the only option is to launch headlong into a critical discussion with this conviction of simplicity. The essay offers a more in-depth reflection in order to integrate tolerance and anti-authoritarianism into our rules and especially into their practical application.