2 ms·

I wonder whether the neutral point of view principle isn't a significant part of the problem. I've long contended, in discussion about the media, that it's abs

I wonder whether the neutral point of view principle isn't a significant part of the problem. I've long contended, in discussion about the media, that it's absolutely impossible to have a completely neutral presentation. Since this is true, it seems better to me to stop pretending to be neutral, and instead to acknowledge the ways in which there may be bias.

Silhouette 17y ago
I think the problem comes when you start to stray from objective facts, which really are inherently neutral, and get into more subjective evaluations of those facts or outright personal opinion. On the tricky pages I encountered, often the problem was that the material was presented as a description of something, followed by advantages and disadvantages sections, and while the description may have been factual, that's where the objectivity ended. Perhaps from Wikipedia's point of view that means the pros and cons simply shouldn't be featured. Realistically, however, someone researching a new field will probably be interested in such information, and many pages on Wikipedia do have this structure. Rather than trying to push water uphill, it might be a smarter move to adapt to the reality and do it properly.
- tptacek 17y ago
  There is a process of nearly mechanical editing you can do to fix subjective "Criticisms" or "Controversy" sections in WP articles: you replace naked opinions with overt citations, like, "In 2007, David Broder remarked in the New York Times that...". There is also a fairly straightforward process of assessing the weight that a "Controversies" section gives to a POV by repeatedly citing similar or related sources, and a set of editing tactics that can be used to collapse them into a summary graf.
tptacek 17y ago
The goal of Wikipedia isn't truth, it's verifiability. Whether it's possible to be truly neutral or not is besides the point. NPOV isn't a policy designed to converge on truth. It's a policy designed to converge on a set of verifiable statements.

Silhouette 17y ago

I think the problem comes when you start to stray from objective facts, which really are inherently neutral, and get into more subjective evaluations of those facts or outright personal opinion. On the tricky pages I encountered, often the problem was that the material was presented as a description of something, followed by advantages and disadvantages sections, and while the description may have been factual, that's where the objectivity ended. Perhaps from Wikipedia's point of view that means the pros and cons simply shouldn't be featured. Realistically, however, someone researching a new field will probably be interested in such information, and many pages on Wikipedia do have this structure. Rather than trying to push water uphill, it might be a smarter move to adapt to the reality and do it properly.

tptacek 17y ago
There is a process of nearly mechanical editing you can do to fix subjective "Criticisms" or "Controversy" sections in WP articles: you replace naked opinions with overt citations, like, "In 2007, David Broder remarked in the New York Times that...". There is also a fairly straightforward process of assessing the weight that a "Controversies" section gives to a POV by repeatedly citing similar or related sources, and a set of editing tactics that can be used to collapse them into a summary graf.

tptacek 17y ago

The goal of Wikipedia isn't truth, it's verifiability. Whether it's possible to be truly neutral or not is besides the point. NPOV isn't a policy designed to converge on truth. It's a policy designed to converge on a set of verifiable statements.