3 ms·

If you think of Wikipedia as a summary of what old-school mass media says about a subject, rather than being the truth or complete or informative or useful, the

If you think of Wikipedia as a summary of what old-school mass media says about a subject, rather than being the truth or complete or informative or useful, then all these contradictions disappear.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- username3 15y ago
  Wikipedia should have NPOV articles and forked POV versions. I'd read diffs comparing the main NPOV and POV versions. This would make disputes easier to resolve. We could have a branched view of the article from all POVs. Wikipedia should be more like GitHub.
  - herge 15y ago
    The discussion page should fill that requirement, where anyone can discuss POVs and less mainstream views on a topic.
    - username3 15y ago
      Issues and discussions get lost and repeated in the discussion page. We need more structure like an issues page and pull requests.
  - ErrantX 15y ago
    The crux of most POV disputes revolve around arguing what the NPOV actually is! So unfortunately I'm not sure that would really solve the issue. I suspect that attempting to do as you suggest would mostly lead to the spawning of more arguments ;) And at what point do you judge the point of view too marginal to be worth a fork? The point behind NPOV is not to avoid showing any opinion - but to show a balanced set of opinions, giving most exposure to the most widely accepted ones. In practice Wikipedia has already been "forked" by some POV's. For example Conservapedia, I believe, is quite active. It would certainly be interesting if someone put together a tool to compare several different Wiki's articles side by side. (FWIW I think we treat marginal issues very badly by stamping them out of content at every opportunity. Case in point is the 9/11 article which for a long time resisted mentioning that conspiracy theories about the atrocity existed... even to the extent of rejecting a "See Also" link to the article on the topic.)
beefman 15y ago
Just one problem with this view: The quality of Wikipedia is far higher than any mass-media or print source, or even collection of sources, can explain. By quality I mean not only breadth, but also depth and accuracy of coverage. The policies of wikipedia, rigorously applied from the start, could never have produced it.
stfu 15y ago
Being the truth? I bet you can find an "expert" like the person complaining on the Cronicle, who disagrees whole heartedly about what you belive the "truth" is. Outside of the hard science "truth" is a very negotiable subject. Just imagine how difficult it would become to find the "truth" between the opposing parties around the currently most popular The Cronicle article ( http://chronicle.com/article/Charles-Murray-Author-of-The/130722/ http://chronicle.com/article/Charles-Murray-Author-of-The/13... ).

If you think of Wikipedia as a summary of what old-school mass media says about a subject, rather than being the truth or complete or informative or useful, then all these contradictions disappear.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

username3 15y ago
Wikipedia should have NPOV articles and forked POV versions. I'd read diffs comparing the main NPOV and POV versions. This would make disputes easier to resolve. We could have a branched view of the article from all POVs. Wikipedia should be more like GitHub.
- herge 15y ago
  The discussion page should fill that requirement, where anyone can discuss POVs and less mainstream views on a topic.
  - username3 15y ago
    Issues and discussions get lost and repeated in the discussion page. We need more structure like an issues page and pull requests.
- ErrantX 15y ago
  The crux of most POV disputes revolve around arguing what the NPOV actually is! So unfortunately I'm not sure that would really solve the issue. I suspect that attempting to do as you suggest would mostly lead to the spawning of more arguments ;) And at what point do you judge the point of view too marginal to be worth a fork? The point behind NPOV is not to avoid showing any opinion - but to show a balanced set of opinions, giving most exposure to the most widely accepted ones. In practice Wikipedia has already been "forked" by some POV's. For example Conservapedia, I believe, is quite active. It would certainly be interesting if someone put together a tool to compare several different Wiki's articles side by side. (FWIW I think we treat marginal issues very badly by stamping them out of content at every opportunity. Case in point is the 9/11 article which for a long time resisted mentioning that conspiracy theories about the atrocity existed... even to the extent of rejecting a "See Also" link to the article on the topic.)

beefman 15y ago

Just one problem with this view: The quality of Wikipedia is far higher than any mass-media or print source, or even collection of sources, can explain. By quality I mean not only breadth, but also depth and accuracy of coverage. The policies of wikipedia, rigorously applied from the start, could never have produced it.

stfu 15y ago

Being the truth? I bet you can find an "expert" like the person complaining on the Cronicle, who disagrees whole heartedly about what you belive the "truth" is. Outside of the hard science "truth" is a very negotiable subject. Just imagine how difficult it would become to find the "truth" between the opposing parties around the currently most popular The Cronicle article ( http://chronicle.com/article/Charles-Murray-Author-of-The/130722/ http://chronicle.com/article/Charles-Murray-Author-of-The/13... ).