4 ms·

What viewpoints do you feel are underrepresented? Personally I’m not convinced that all viewpoints require “airtime” and I’d prefer not to endure anti-vaxxer, f

What viewpoints do you feel are underrepresented? Personally I’m not convinced that all viewpoints require “airtime” and I’d prefer not to endure anti-vaxxer, flat earth, creationist, ariosophy, QAnon, or whatever David Icke is raving about today, in the name of “balance”. When I go to an article about quantum mechanics, I don’t need a section on The Secret because it’s a “viewpoint” that exists. I want a curated experience, not the full hue and cry of the Internet. I also want to avoid undue bias, but that doesn’t mean a total abrogation or editorial policy.

sverige 8y ago
My point is that there are lots of people who don't want to endure the viewpoints that you perceive as being so obviously correct that there is no need for further discussion. This attitude is much closer to the Catholic Church's ancient position on astronomy than Galileo's. For example, I have no doubt that the flat earth theory is incorrect, but it wouldn't bother me if it we're included in Wikipedia. How can anyone learn to think critically if certain ideas are forbidden? And once the idea that it's ok to forbid certain ideas takes hold, the list of forbidden ideas always expands. That is far more dangerous than allowing what seem to be obviously ridiculous ideas to be expressed. The problem with editorial policy for a site like Wikipedia is who gets to decide what that policy is? Thus, we have the endless fights like this one. It's avoidable in theory, but "curation" is always in vogue -- so long as the curators think like us.
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  "For example, I have no doubt that the flat earth theory is incorrect, but it wouldn't bother me if it we're included in Wikipedia." Sure, but it belongs in its own article (where it is found) not in the middle of the articles on Earth, geography, etc.
- fourthark 8y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies
beaconstudios 8y ago
these minority viewpoints don't need to be given prominence, but I think they should certainly be given the right to exist and to be documented. From my perspective, even the most egregious views should be aired against their subject of interest, for numerous reasons: - if they are badly argued ideas they will stand in stark contrast to well supported ideas, naturally diffusing the benefit that conspiracy theories often gain from being "banned" in the style of "what they don't want you to know"-type arguments. - The best way to critique an idea into the ground is to understand it better than its advocates. - Even a bad idea can raise questions of good ideas, in the same vein as getting to the right answer through the wrong reasoning. Poking holes in our best ideas forces innovation. - More awareness of the kind of ideas that exist in the world is, in my opinion, never a bad thing. - An outlier opinion can still be right. Obviously theories like flat earth don't fall into this category, but quantum mechanics and heliocentrism once did.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  From development to widespread acceptance QM didn’t take very long, because of course it’s possible to test to a high degree of accuracy. Flat Earth was debunked many centuries (millennia really) ago, but still persists. I’m not sure how much more critique needs to be done, or what questions can be raised. Most people are aware of it, and rightly dismiss it. The only people who think it should be treated seriously are people who, believe in it. So why entertain it? Because of some vague ideological opposition to curation? It seems to me, from experience at least, thst it usually has to do with a desire to use “universal acceptance” as an excuse to smuggle someone’s own pet crank idea into the mix. Creationists don’t seriously care about scientific inquiry or bias, they just started using those lines when legal bans on teaching evolution failed. Fascists and racists turned from trying to dominate society, to undermining it. Once an idea has been thoroughly and comprehensively discredited it’s a waste of time at best, propaganda at worst. Yes, it can be challenging to deal with ideas on the borderline, and we should always try harder, but the solution isn’t intellectual nihilism. Ceasing to use any critical thinking because it might invite bias is a bad idea, and I think only really put forth by people who’s marginal ideas have no other hope of being heard. After all, terrible ideas are documented, but there’s no moral, practical or intellectual reasons to document them everywhere.

sverige 8y ago

My point is that there are lots of people who don't want to endure the viewpoints that you perceive as being so obviously correct that there is no need for further discussion. This attitude is much closer to the Catholic Church's ancient position on astronomy than Galileo's. For example, I have no doubt that the flat earth theory is incorrect, but it wouldn't bother me if it we're included in Wikipedia. How can anyone learn to think critically if certain ideas are forbidden? And once the idea that it's ok to forbid certain ideas takes hold, the list of forbidden ideas always expands. That is far more dangerous than allowing what seem to be obviously ridiculous ideas to be expressed. The problem with editorial policy for a site like Wikipedia is who gets to decide what that policy is? Thus, we have the endless fights like this one. It's avoidable in theory, but "curation" is always in vogue -- so long as the curators think like us.

jonhendry18 8y ago
"For example, I have no doubt that the flat earth theory is incorrect, but it wouldn't bother me if it we're included in Wikipedia." Sure, but it belongs in its own article (where it is found) not in the middle of the articles on Earth, geography, etc.
fourthark 8y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies

beaconstudios 8y ago

these minority viewpoints don't need to be given prominence, but I think they should certainly be given the right to exist and to be documented. From my perspective, even the most egregious views should be aired against their subject of interest, for numerous reasons: - if they are badly argued ideas they will stand in stark contrast to well supported ideas, naturally diffusing the benefit that conspiracy theories often gain from being "banned" in the style of "what they don't want you to know"-type arguments. - The best way to critique an idea into the ground is to understand it better than its advocates. - Even a bad idea can raise questions of good ideas, in the same vein as getting to the right answer through the wrong reasoning. Poking holes in our best ideas forces innovation. - More awareness of the kind of ideas that exist in the world is, in my opinion, never a bad thing. - An outlier opinion can still be right. Obviously theories like flat earth don't fall into this category, but quantum mechanics and heliocentrism once did.

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
From development to widespread acceptance QM didn’t take very long, because of course it’s possible to test to a high degree of accuracy. Flat Earth was debunked many centuries (millennia really) ago, but still persists. I’m not sure how much more critique needs to be done, or what questions can be raised. Most people are aware of it, and rightly dismiss it. The only people who think it should be treated seriously are people who, believe in it. So why entertain it? Because of some vague ideological opposition to curation? It seems to me, from experience at least, thst it usually has to do with a desire to use “universal acceptance” as an excuse to smuggle someone’s own pet crank idea into the mix. Creationists don’t seriously care about scientific inquiry or bias, they just started using those lines when legal bans on teaching evolution failed. Fascists and racists turned from trying to dominate society, to undermining it. Once an idea has been thoroughly and comprehensively discredited it’s a waste of time at best, propaganda at worst. Yes, it can be challenging to deal with ideas on the borderline, and we should always try harder, but the solution isn’t intellectual nihilism. Ceasing to use any critical thinking because it might invite bias is a bad idea, and I think only really put forth by people who’s marginal ideas have no other hope of being heard. After all, terrible ideas are documented, but there’s no moral, practical or intellectual reasons to document them everywhere.