Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 011

Clarification of criticisms

Misleading redefinition of known concepts:

• 1. NPOV claims to have nothing to do with objectivity. However, a closer look reveals it to suggest that an "objective" presentation of viewpoints is a possible and attainable goal.

What I meant here is that NPOV claims that an "objective" - in the sense of "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" presentation of viewpoints is possible. I claim that on a conceptual basis, every article will always have bias toward some viewpoints, even bias that stems from simply the ordering of their presentation.

But isn't this the mistaken interpretation that is explicitly rejected in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Objections and clarifications#There's no such thing as objectivity? Are you saying that section needs work? If so, how? Banno 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If NPOV was actually about neutrality like its name suggests. Then it would be an attempt for objectivity over viewpoints, therefore impossible. Consensus is attainable, sure. --84.228.107.148 22:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• 2. NPOV has been accused of consistently using doublespeak and euphemisms, for example: by "neutral point of view", it is actually meant "communally accepted perspective" or more severely, simply "common bias". By "minority viewpoint" it is actually meant "subjectively unjustified viewpoint importance" rather than actual quantitative inferiority within the general population.

This is a very heavy accusation and should not be overlooked!: What I'm saying here is that "neutral point of view" has nothing to do with neutrality! It is about compromises made between self chosen authors. Each author may subjectively agree that the article credits their views about the subject and therefore is percieved "unbiased". But this has nothing to do with making a supposedly "neutral" perspective of the subject, it's about a very different thing which is making a "consensually agreed outlook" on it.

In the words of Jimbo Wales himself: (from NPOV as description,not prescription)

And if a thoughtful effort by a variety of contributors to work together for a fair presentation of all sides results in "common bias" instead of "no bias", then so be it. There is no viable alternative.

Now I'm countering Jimbo and saying that there is a viable alternative. The alternative is not to deliberately deceive and distrust your community by calling your policy by a pretentious and ridiculous name like "neutral point of view". Instead, call it "compromise policy" or some other sane name.

So your objection is that "Neutral point of view" is the wrong term to use? Only because of your preconception that it implies some "objective" viewpoint - which it doesn't, explicitly. to be Neutral is just to refrain from taking part in a controversy - the Wiki does not take sides, it reports the issues. This policy is about how to do that. Banno 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If the neutrality policy is not about neutrality then it should be renamed. Wikiepedia does not redefine terms --84.228.107.148 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Now about "Minority viewpoint": This is one of my favorites. "Minority view" (conversly "majority view") is the kind of pretentious euphemisms Jimbo calls "views editors don't like" (ie pseudoscience, religion-based view etc.). To remind you Jimbo that most people in the world are religious, with a plain understanding of your policy: Wikipedia should be mostly written from some religion's point of view!

Pretension of fairness:

• 3. NPOV shows a pseudo-democratic conception of fairness towards viewpoints (undue weight), which is considered misleading and insulting for the known concept of "fairness" by some critics.

What I'm saying here is very severe: Real fairness is about giving each viewpoint equal space!. Labeling the idea of "undue weight" as fair is continuously savaging the idea of morality. In the name of fairness - undue weight is not fair, it is anything but fair - it is a way for an encyclopedia to be sane and selective and not to become a "waste dump" of viewpoints. Encyclopedias should not be nor claim to be fair towards viewpoints

So what are you proposing? that every viewpoint be included? isn't that a tall order? Just in terms of practicality, let's leave this one alone. Banno 21:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV shouldn't claim to be fair towards viewpoints. Simple as that. --84.228.107.148 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• 4. NPOV professes to fairness towards viewpoints, but does not take fairness towards the article's subject into account, thus allowing articles to become strongly critical of the subject, if there are no prominent defenders of it. (however, this may be considered unethical in practice)

This was properly understood

And is a salient point. Banno

Overuse of vague viewpoint quantification:

• 5. NPOV actively exemplifies using vague and unscientific expressions like "some people", "most people", "many people" for the quantification of viewpoints. Critics see this as being generally unhealthy towards creating a supposedly accurate encyclopedia. (This actually conflicts with wikipedia's policy of verifiability). Another criticism is that these expressions consist of an appeal to popularity, thus are a form of rhetorical bias toward popular viewpoints.

This was properly understood

But is a misunderstanding of the policy. Such statements should be properly referenced. Banno

Common sense doesn't like this sort of statements anyway. --84.228.107.148 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsuitability:

• 6 Another criticism is that NPOV naively presumes all participants to be equal in power and persistence over the expression of their supported viewpoints, in order to attain its goal. Therefore it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia that features credited seniority of editorship and hierarchical administrative structure.

What I'm saying here is that wikipedia will always be biased towards the viewpoints of those who are more persistent of editing it (ie those 2000 addict wikipedians). Simply by the fact that they edit more frequently. There is nothing to do about this.

Yes, Wiki suffers systemic biase.

Banno

Yep. --84.228.107.148 22:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line: my criticism can be summed by saying that like it or not, the policy sounds to me more like a leaflet of propaganda rather than an actual policy.

--84.228.107.148 11:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

But you can't change policy without consensus, which you clearly don't have. If you think it's propaganda, you are entitled to that belief, but obviously most people disagree. You are always free to start your own online encyclopedia elsewhere following whatever guidelines you'd like and take whatever NPOV policy-hating users you can with you. DreamGuy 12:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't believe that writing an encyclopedia based on compromises between authors is a bad idea; On the contrary - In that sense I have nothing against "NPOV". I was criticising what NPOV claims to provide rather than what it actually provides in practice. --84.228.107.148 13:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dreamguy, you keep saying that others do not have the consensus. What you don't understand is that if others do not have the consensus, by definition of consensus, you don't have it either! There is apparently a tendency on your side to consider that your viewpoint is the consensus that others don't have. This is especially the case here. --Lumiere 15:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the leaflet of propaganda statement of 84.228.107.148. I am not saying that he/she had especially section 4 in mind, but I think it is the perfect example! We should go direct to the point of what is the policy and discuss concrete fundamental issues. --Lumiere 15:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But what we have here, and it is not an uncommon notion, is the idea that "neutral" in NPOV means nothing else than "objective"; that objectivity is impossible; and that therefore the NPOV policy is an impossibility. This view is persistent, even though it is explicitly rejected in the article. But there is not a hope in hell of changing the name of the policy, nor is such a change warranted on the basis of a misunderstanding of the policy. Unless this discussion moves on to something that is directly relevant to the content of the policy, there is little point in continuing it. Banno 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's something directly relevant to the content of the policy: NPOV is FUD. NPOV deliberately distorts the meaning of neutrality, fairness, minority, majority, knowledge, morality and whatnot. NPOV is a mishmash of incoherent abstract notions, presented in a way that would not shame some political movement. NPOV tries to make itself impossible to criticise or improve by incorrectly redefining and apologizing about itself every paragraph of the article. Do you want the truth?

Here's the truth: NPOV only "makes sense" to the clique of people who use it. It does not assert a coherent definition of itself nor anything. It is socially constructed by the wikipedia clique with an "interpretation" relevant to the clique. It is impossible to cite or use in solving actual problems. --84.228.107.148 09:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Debunking a common myth: stating opinions as facts doesn't automatically make less bias

(This was also pointed out by Lumiere, it also explains criticism 4 above)

Consider the following hypothetical wikipedia article about "John Doe":

John Doe is a politician. He is also an abusive person.

Now, a wiki editor, sees this and immediately screams "POV!", then instinctively modifies the article to the following:

John Doe is a politician. Some people say he is also an abusive person.

or alternatively:

John Doe is a politician. He was also accused of being an abusive person.

Now I ask, which version is more biased? According to NPOV policy (and the average wiki-editor), the first, because asserting an opinion as truth makes it obviously a one-sided (and therefore biased) approach to the topic.

Not necessarily: The first version simply asserts an honest opinion. The wikinarrator claims John Doe is an abusive person. I don't agree, so what?. However, the second version makes a somewhat stronger and deceptive accusation about poor Mr. Doe. What the second version does is using a kind of rhetoric I call an "appeal to objectivity" (the "journalistic fallacy"). On the second version, the wikinarrator needs no explaining why Mr Doe is abusive, instead, he/she points out that "some people" consider him as one. The second version sounds more objective and reliable, therefore, in practice, it may actually sound more reasonable thus biased.

Conclusion: "concealing" opinions by objectifying them is a sort of easy catch-all solution that doesn't really do much except making the viewpoint appear less conclusive. If there is no strong defence for some critical viewpoint then it will remain biased until someone contrasts it. --84.228.107.148 17:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can verify the information, most people will indeed scream POV, and justifiably so, too. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But:

John Doe is a politician. He was also accused of being an abusive person by Harry Hypocrite.

is a verifiable statement, especially when accompanied by a suitable citation. Because it is verifiable, it is neutral. The question then becomes the one that Lumiere pointed to - whether the information deserves to be included or not. A large part of NPOV does consist in making statements that are mutually agreeable. Banno 21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I simply don't agree that your example is neutral. Any opinion, no matter how stated, either factually stated or not, either verifiable or referenced or true or whatever, consist of telling one side of the story and thus biased. There is nothing you can do about it.--84.228.107.148 21:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not neutral in your sense of unbiased; but the NPOV policy does not seek to remove bias. It seeks to reach agreement, and does this by stating things in such a way that they are mutually agreeable. See m:NPOV is an ideal. Along the way, incidentally, bias is indeed systematically removed. Banno 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If the neutrality policy is not about neutrality then it should be renamed. Simple as that. Wikipedia does not redefine terms. --84.228.107.148 22:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is not suppsoed to be any "wikinarrator" expressign opnions, that is IMO a large part of what NPOV means. Now if the hypothetical article read:

John Doe is a politician. He was also accused of being an abusive person by Harry Hypocrite in the April 1 2008 edition of Detestable Politicos. However Jane Friendly wrote an articel in which she purports to refute Hypocrite's claims in the Spring 2009 issue of Abuser's Quarterly.

or if it read :

John Doe is a politician. He was also accused of being an abusive person by Harry Hypocrite in the April 1 2008 edition of Detestable Politicos. This position was supported by Fred Fairlybright and Dorcus Dither in letters publsihed in the next issue. Doe was later indited for "rampant abuse" but was aqquited at his trial.

then in either case we have a well sourced article statign facts, includign fact about who has charged what and when. That is a proper NPOV sort of article, IMO. DES ^(talk) 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the selection of opinions, not how you back them up with facts. If the neutrality policy is not about neutrality then it should be renamed. Simple as that. Wikipedia does not redefine terms. --84.228.107.148 22:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is there so much reverting going on on this page?

Significant changes need to be proposed on the talk page and a consensus formed for them before they're included. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is quite simple: Remove the section entitled "Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?". The section is almost 100% repetition of what has been said in section 2: The neutral point of view, and some other sections also. Do you really need me to show you how the page would look without the section? I have tried to abbreviate it, but my efforts are being ignored with no comments just reversions. Bensaccount 18:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is one of our core policies. I don't see what it hurts to have a section that retierates what's already been said -- (tell me, then show me, then tell me again). Is there any consensus for your desire to remove the section? · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying the same thing twice in slightly different wording is detrimental because it allows for slight differences to start appearing without being noticed. These lead to parallel policies on the same page depending on which repetition is being cited as the policy. The consensus stands at what I proposed since nobody has given a good reason to keep this. Bensaccount 18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the way consensus works. For instance, I have said I oppose what you're doing. Looking through the edit history, obviously others do as well. That means there is a de facto consensus against what you're seeking to do. So, please quit. We can discuss this, but stop deleting the material for now, please. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus to keep section 4 it either. I am not aware of any policy that says there must be a consensus for each edit. There is at the least three editors that have the same complaints about section 4. The only reason why I do not remove it is that I am more interested in improving our common understanding of the policy than to change the main page because whatever is achieved at the level of our understanding is much more important, fundamental, stable, etc. than what happens in the main page. However, it is also necessary to modify the main page and I don't see that we can blame Bensaccount for trying. --Lumiere 18:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone disputes an edit, then consensusbuilding begins. That is fundamental to how Wikipedia works. Obviously, if noone disputes an edit, then there's no need for consensus on that edit. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ben here - section 4 (in the veersion in question) adds nothing, but just restates what is already on the project page. We can do without it, jguk 19:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Locked

Messing around with the key policy of Wikipedia like this is blatant disruption. I've blocked Bensaccount for 48 hours and locked the page. If an admin disagrees hugely, go ahead and you try childminding him. In the meantime, experienced admins are invited to try to bring the page back to something that people do actually accept as policy - David Gerard 18:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the page to the last edit made by an administrator prior to when Bensaccount began editing this page: November 17 diff. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you consider politely asking him to edit a draft version instead of blocking him? Did you consider it might be the case that this policy really needs work and maybe even a complete rewrite?. And no, NPOV it is not "sacred" nor a "taboo issue" nor a "dogma". It's a commnunity policy, not an ideology. Please reconsider your actions.--84.228.107.148 21:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Sue me - David Gerard 21:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

84*, I already asked Bensaccount to edit a separate draft and he blew me off. Yes, it's a community policy. You should not be surprised that the community will protect its founding policy from a couple of users who do not represent the community.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 11:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The last version by Bensaccount reads much better than the older version Katefan0 has reverted back to. None of the changes made recently actually changes the policy, they appear just to give similar guidance on it in a clearer way. I don't really understand what you think Ben has done wrong - he's made a number of improvements and has answered requests for explanations for them here on the talk page. Isn't that what you're meant to do when you want to try to change the wording of something? I recommend reverting to Ben's version once the page is unlocked, jguk 19:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I presume sensible admins with a clue can edit it as makes sense in the light of their experience, which would include you - David Gerard 21:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians maybe, but not some admins

Naturally, Wikipedians themselves do have their own points of view. Wikipedia is a thoughtful and loving community in which everyone is welcome to contribute: Wikipedians aspire to treat their own opinions as being no more and no less valid compared with those of everyone else.

This paragraph was reverted back by some admins as a part of an unilateral revert that might even most likely have destroyed useful edits. In any case, I think it needs to be corrected:

Naturally, Wikipedians themselves, including the admins, do have their own points of view. Wikipedia is NOT a thoughtful and loving community in which everyone is welcome to contribute: Wikipedians, aspire to treat their own opinions as being no more and no less valid compared with those of everyone else, but the difficulty is some admins fail to fulfil this desire for higher achievements.

--Lumiere 19:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I own up to responsibility for putting the above paragraph in the policy. I was inspired by the recent dispute over Userboxes and Jimbo's pronouncements on the matter. However your rewrite seems to be just an attack on the Admins. With 800 or so admins, there are bound to be some who occasionally fail to live up to the high ideals of Wikipedia. An admin has no privilege over other users when it comes to content disputes. David | Talk 21:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I was careful to only refer to some admins in my new version, which of course was not a genuine proposal. Sometimes one needs to react to the attitude of some. I understand that it can make some innocent people feel uncomfortable. The goal was only to point out that the specific behavior that can be seen in this talk page did not achieve this ideal standard. --Lumiere 22:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Partially just for fun, but not entirely

I think I found a funny way to explain where is the problem with the NPOV policy. The problem is that it looks like the NPOV policy have been applied to itself: it contains different formulations that are like different viewpoints on it. Perhaps we should push this situation to the extreme and have statements such as "Bensaccount says that the policy is ... Others such as Harald88 say..." That will be a policy with a neutral point of view! The readers will be able to judge for themselve! --Lumiere 02:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, the useless policy that we would obtain if we were to strictly apply to the NPOV policy the viewpoint on this policy that is presented in the section WP:NPOV#A simple formulation is perhaps what 84.228.107.148 had in mind when he wrote that the NPOV policy might be fair for every viewpoint on a subject, but not for the subject itself. --Lumiere 02:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the policy needs to be (a) defined better (b)enforced. It would help sort out so many content disputes. I find that I am having the same kinds of disputes over and over again, because people disagree on how Neutral point of view should be interpretted. If the policy was better defined, editors could demonstrate whether an contributor was contravening the policy. --Iantresman 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not redefine words

(I know this is long, but please take the time to carefully study and evaluate this, as it was given a lot of time and thought and discusses fundamental issues. And please don't comment inside it but below, I want it to remain readable)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It does not have its own definitions of words, at encyclopedic articles as well as in policy pages. The following is written according to established definitions. (relevant definitions adopted from webster dictionary)

• Neutral: adjective, not engaged on either side
• Neutrality: noun, the quality or state of being neutral
• Consensus: noun, general agreement : unanimity
• Fair: adjective, marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism.
• Fairness: noun, the quality of being fair.
• Majority: noun, the larger in number of two groups constituting a whole.
• Minority: noun, the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole.
• Viewpoint: noun, a position from which something is considered or evaluated.
• Compromise: noun, settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.

An important distinction:

• Language bias: Expressions which are written to engage in one side.
• Selective bias: Bias that naturally stems from the selection of viewpoints.

A descriptive analysis of wikipedia article development process

(using exactly the above definitions and none other)

Scenario 1:

• A Wikipedia article is collaboratively written by a group of authors (hereby G).
• Each author has different viewpoints about the subject.
• Authors X and Y have conflicting viewpoints.
• Authors X and Y consult the policy about conflicting viewpoints.
• Authors X and Y reach a compromise in which their opposing views are both presented neutrally and fairly.
• The group G has a consensus about the article being fair and neutral (both linguistically and selectively) relative to all authors.

Observations about scenario 1:

• The article is fair and neutral relative to the viewpoints of the group G. But may be one of the following:
  • Selectively biased towards the viewpoints chosen by the group. (but may be linguistically unbiased)
  • Unfair towards the viewpoints not chosen by the group (because there are no authors that support them)
  • Hostile of the subject (Group G's consensus contains only viewpoints which are negative of the subject)

Conclusions from scenario 1:

• A wikipedia article reflects a consensus reached by compromises made by a group of authors.

Scenario 2:

• A new author enters the group G, which by now has 100 authors.
• The new author N has a view that conflicts with all the viewpoints (consensus) presented on the article.
• N is a minority relative to the group. N is 1 G is 100.
• According to the principal of undue weight. The new author:
  • Recieves no space for his/her viewpoint.
  • Recieves little space for his/her viewpoint.

Observation about scenario 2:

• N's viewpoint is not represented fairly relative to the other viewpoints.
• N may have a viewpoint that reflects a large precentage of the population of earth. (e.g. China) but it will not be or be little represented.

Conclusions from scenario 2:

• A wikipedia article is fundamentally not fair about viewpoints. (other than those accepted by the group, with the reservations of undue weight)

General conclusion:

• A "wikipedia article" is not written from a neutral point of view. "The group's consensus about the article" is written from a neutral point of view. (with the exception of views that are held by a minority relative to the group of authors, that are not represented fairly)

--84.228.107.148 13:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So what? What practical suggestions does this lead to? Are you suggesting that N be given some sort of overarching editorial control? How could that be helpful? Are you suggesting that G write from N's point of view? That is already suggested elsewhere in the policies. Are you asking Wikipedia to adopt a point of view that is neutral with respect to any and every possible understanding of every subject? But didn't you say that such an "objective" point of view was impossible? Banno

Yours is an argument in support of the need for Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, not an argument for removing or changing the NPOV policy. That policy guides the way in which articles are written, and is used continually to alter and improve articles. It is part of the founding vision of Wikipedia, part of our organisational identity. It cannot be changed. If you don't like it, start your own encyclopedia. Banno 15:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not saying or suggesting anything. Just trying to come up with a clear, unambiguous description of how wikipedia and NPOV works. With clear, established definitions. That's all, really. --84.228.107.148 16:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Banno, did you write It cannot be changed'? To the contrary, I think it can and has been modified a lot. The other issue is that we should consider the fact that the policy is not very clear. --Lumiere 16:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

While it may be possible to modify the details of the policy, it is not possible to either remove it or re-name it without radically altering the nature of the Wikipedia. It is fundamental. Banno 16:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems a little bit fanatic, especially when we consider the fact that what this policy means in practice is not even clear. What we have seems like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which all country praise, but often interpret it in their own way to commit crimes against humanity. I would prefer something more like the traffic light system. --Lumiere 16:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What happens when you attempt to make a large change to this policy? It is reverted. Protecting core beliefs is normal organisational behaviour. Comparing NPOV violations to human rights violations... that's fanatical. Banno 21:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It was just refering to the fact that the current formulation of the policy mentions a lot of general principles. Let us forget about the terminology "fanatic" or "fanatical" -- it was not a good idea. What I meant is that the policy needs to be more to the points and better connected with the other policies, and this may imply a significant rewriting. --Lumiere 21:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy should indicate whether policy on concensus takes precedence over other Wikipedia policies, or not. It seems to me that if a 100 contributors incorrectly interpret, for example, neutral point of view, then consensus is irrelevant. --Iantresman 15:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course. All consensus does is establish what is more likely to be true and we use it as a working theory to move forward on disagreements in practice. That is how it should continue to be. If a small consensus arrives at a conclusion contrary to established policy that has had many more contributors the small consensus is more likely to be wrong. But what the original handwringing in this section ignores is the fact that facts and quality of references behind a position are what really supports it's inclusion in an article, not how many editors want it. Any reasonable editors will change their stance on an issue when conclusive evidence is provided in the form of a very reliable reference. Thus the major content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOT work successfully in consort. - Taxman ^Talk 17:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The group of editors include what they want. Period. If they feel it's justified to include something because it's well-referenced then it is their own choice. In this sense, they support the viewpoint. --84.228.107.148 19:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not if consensus and policies are followed. NPOV can eliminate selective presentation of facts. Good research and implementing WP:V can demonstrate the importance of including alternate facts/views or demonstrate they shouldn't be included. You're substantially missing the point about how the major policies should be applied. - Taxman ^Talk 20:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Verifiability policy is complete amateurish rubbish. The group ultimately decides what's a "reputable publisher". It seems like wikipedia is flooded with so much average-joe idiocy that makes pulp "publishers" like "Nature" seem authoritative or worse, "reliable" in comparison. Give me a break. --84.228.107.148 10:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, I think you meant WP:NOR instead of WP:NOT. WP:NOT is not a content policy, I think. --Lumiere 18:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I made a typo there, but WP:NOT could really be seen as the next content policy after the others determining what content we don't want here. - Taxman ^Talk 20:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR should work, but my experience is that they don't. I find that I am encouraged to enter into the dispute resolution process, which actually tends to divert attention away from the content policies.

I recognise that while there are all kinds of disputes, some of them can be resolved VERY EASILY because the content policies indicate which way the dispute will go. But because it is not alway clear from the policies (or they are ambiguous), and because several editors may not full understand the policies, such disputes may degenerate into opnions.

I feel that the policies should be (a) clearer (b) there should be a way for an administrator to ADJUDICATE on whether an issue compromises a policy, and this willl prevent an unnecessary and lengthy dispute resolution process.

--Iantresman 19:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My experience and that of those that understand them is that they work just great. You just have to simply enforce them. I also don't think they are terribly difficult to understand, but they can always be improved for clarity. I think all of you guys just need to spend more time reading the main policies and implementing them, which may include encouraging other editors to read them. Yes it may involve discussion and dispute resolution, but judicious application of the core policies can more or less minimize the time wasted on that. Repeatedly we find that there aren't big problems with the policies, but those that don't read them or work with them enough to understand them. The missing trick may be applying them in consort so think about how they coordinate and you should be fine. - Taxman ^Talk 20:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How do I enforce a policy? My experience is that an opposing editor just argues back, either claiming my "interpretation" of policy is incorrect, or even denying my verifiable evidence. And then it's suggesting RfC's again. In some cases (but not all), some cases are clear-cut contraventions of policy, but if another editor disagrees, we end up going around in circles again, unless you are LUCKY to have another supporting editor. But then it's back to consensus again, regardless of the policy. --Iantresman 23:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well this isn't exactly the place for it, but I'll try to summarize. Further discussion should either be on your talk page or the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution talk page. In a dispute, first re-read the applicable policies. Copy and paste quotes from them if need be. State your positition as concisely as possible. If you are right, other editors will typically agree with you. If you are not, readjust your position based on the facts. If there aren't enough editors to represent a meaningful consensus, solicit help from other editors from related articles, village pump, IRC, etc. Rinse and repeat until a consensus emerges and when it does ask all editors help in implementing it. If one users refuses to abide by it, they need to find increasingly reputable and valid evidence to support their position or they are simply being disruptive and then you do escalate to mediation, an RfC, etc. If they are truly disruptive and unwilling to back up their position with evidence they can of course be blocked. More likely people really just simply disagree but are all really trying to improve the article, and continually referring to the important policies and requesting references to back up their position is successful and the outcome is one or more reliable sources are able to determine what facts are included and what aren't. It helps to maintain civilty and respect throughout as politely disagreeing people come to an agreeable conclusion pretty easily generally. But generally little beats solid research. The one that does the best research to the best sources usually has the strongest position if they are being honest about the material. - Taxman ^Talk 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, this is pretty much how to it is supposed to work. I tell a contributor that I think they have contravened a policy, and quote the exact sentence. It gets ignored, or they'll argue something else. A second contributor agrees with the first (despite my explaining the policies). And an appeal to an adminstrator usually results in the suggestion that it is a content dispute. In other words, because there is no one to arbritrate on policy, there is no enforcement, and editors go around in circles again and again and again.

There are times that I have provided several peer-reviewed references to a statement, and you wouldn't believe the excuse why they are ALL unsuitable, including "I am getting all [my] information from very biased sources", "Because of my insertion of nonsense", "I "haven't made a thorough evaluation of the sources you wish to consider", "My first citation is to a poorly written (from the English standpoint)", "This is an unacceptable form of research. ", etc etc

Without the means to enforce a policy, I feel that the policies are next to worthless in resoloving disputes. --Iantresman 08:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, the fact that many admins feel that they understand the WP policies and feel that they are succesful in applying them does not mean that the policies are clear. It can very well be that different admins have different interpretations and are succesful in implementing their respective interpretation. Even if they have a similar interpretations of the policies, it would still not mean that the policies are clear. This common interpretation could have been built over time through many discussions. The current formulation of the policies, without these discussions, might not convey so well this common understanding. Even worst, since every human being is biased, it can very well be that the interpretation of a given admin or even of a group of admins (I am referring to a collective bias here) depends upon the context. This is a serious problem, and we must do every thing possible to avoid it. So, it is important to make sure as much as possible that the current formulation of the policies is clear in itself and that all admins commit, without the bias associated with a specific context of application, to a common interpretation of this formulation.

What this means that we must do every thing possible to have very concise policies, avoiding different formulations of any policy which can lead to different interpretations, but having many examples of applications instead. It also means that we should make sure that every policy is clearly interpreted in the context of the other policies to avoid that one policy can be used to misinterpret another policy. Don't you agree that we are far from having achieved that goal? --Lumiere 00:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are not laws and enforcement of policies should not be a legalistic procedure. These core policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR) are guiding principles. The understanding of these core principles are based on consensus and discussion and the precise nuances of application will vary from one situation to another. I think it is more important is to understand the fundamental nature of these principles to Wikipedia and rather than the various specific applications and interpretations made in different contexts. There is systemic bias and Wikipedia editors should make an effort to be aware of the potential for bias and of the dangers of groupthink. But these fundamentals are a sound starting point. older ≠ wiser 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What you wrote seems very beautiful, but actually you are just arguing against a request for a clear formulation with more examples and a better connection between the policies. As far as I know, examples are not just used in text of laws. They are useful to explain any new concept. So why are you talking about legalistic procedure? Who is talking about that? --Lumiere 03:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

After a second thought, one possible explanation for your legalistic interpretation of my request is perhaps that you felt that there is a lack of trust in the admins implicit behind this request, and you associated lack of trust with legal procedure. In case this is your concern, I would like to say that the editors and the admins that we trust will do much better with clear and well connected policies with good examples. --Lumiere 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)