Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

NOTE: The page history for Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view prior to April 11, 2006 has been moved to this page.

Archived discussions
Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004
Archive_002 Closing out 2004
Archive_003 Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005
Archive 004 July to November 4, 2005
Archive 005 to November 13, 2005
Archive 006 to December 4, 2005
Archive 007 to December 30, 2005
Archive 008 to December 27, 2005
Archive 009 to January 16, 2006
Archive 010 to January 23, 2006
Archive 011 to January 25, 2006
Archive 012 to January 26, 2006
Archive 013 to January 29, 2006
Archive 014 to January 29, 2006
Archive 015 to March 8, 2006
Archive 016 to March 10, 2006

When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.

Contents

Undue weight and other long running discussions

Undue weight and other long running discussions which only a few editors are interested participating in have been moved to this subpage: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Limited interest discussions This was done in the interest in freeing the main discussion page up for talk on topics that interest more than one or two editors and because those editors have refused to take these never-ending discussions to a user talk page as many here have requested. FeloniousMonk 23:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What if the Undue weight section is distorted? Maybe in the long run having a clear policy is better than having a clear talk page. Bensaccount 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd think that if the undue weight section were genuinely distorted there'd be more than the same couple editors here pushing to rewrite it over the last 2 + months. FeloniousMonk 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion once again moved to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Limited interest discussions subpage. Étincelle, I suggest you listen to the many requests of your fellow editors, respect their wishes, and discuss this topic on your user talk page. The endless droning on about this is becoming disruptive. FeloniousMonk 08:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with this. - Taxman Talk 08:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree: although not commenting on them most of the time, I follow most of these discussions and AFAIK there is no Wikipdia policy that gives an editor the right to "dump" authentic discussions of other editors into anything else but into the archives - the archives happen to have the purpose to "clean up". Harald88 13:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
WP:POINT covers it. Enough editors have called for the discussion to be continued in the user talk spaces of the one or two who are participating that ignoring those calls has become disruptive. Interested editors are still able to participate or follow the discussion at the subpage. FeloniousMonk 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
First, WP:POINT has nothing to do with it. Second, we are not violating any Wikipedia rule. We are using the talk page exactly as it should be used. We are not disruptive, except in the view of some which don't like our view. Whatever the percentage that it represents, this majority, if there is a majority, is against policy if it tries to prevent us from using the talk page in accordance with policy. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 18:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
"We are using the talk page exactly as it should be used."
Talk pages are not chat rooms. There is no policy that supports flooding a Talk page for several months with tangential discussions that bear no practical fruit. Avoid referring to mythical policy. – Saxifrage ✎ 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your personal view about our contribution to this talk page. There maybe a few editors that share your view, but there are others that don't. As long as we do not violate policy, don't you think this is a good occasion to show some appreciation for the viewpoints of others? It is not us that try to exclude the views of others. So, ask yourself who are the editors that show a lack of appreciation for the views of others, a lack of open mind and heart. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You're not contributing, you're chatting. That's not what this page is for. – Saxifrage ✎ 21:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This is nonsense. When we discuss the Undue weight section, we are not chatting. We are not chatting any more than other editors are chatting when they discuss disclosure of possible conflict of interest (see below). So, again, thank you for your personal view on our contribution. We feel very much appreciated and welcome. Congratulation! -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This is why editors are encouraged to become familiar with Wikipedia before diving into policy discussions. Your lack of experience leaves you unfamiliar with the appropriate uses of particular pages. For instance, at Talk:Nintendo, general talk about the company is removed. Only talk about how to make the article reflect the company is appropriate. Here, the parallel is that you are talking about the Undue Weight policy, not about how to make the page accurately reflect the policy. A certain amount of that is tolerated on policy pages where it is not tolerated at article pages, however, a certain amount does not include several months. (This is why the discussion about biographies is not out-of-line yet.) Do you see the difference? – Saxifrage ✎ 22:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Something just occurred to me: I bet you've never heard of the Wikipedia:Village pump. The sort of discussion that you are fond of is exactly what the Village Pump is designed for, and you will find many editors there who will appreciate the esoteric issues you bring up. Not only that, but much influential policy is hashed out and created at the Village Pump, since it is such a dynamic and high-traffic part of the project. You might find your style of discussion highly welcomed there. – Saxifrage ✎ 21:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hyacinth asked "how do criticisms of topics fits into the Wikipedia articles about those topics?" If you think you can answer this question in a less "esoteric" manner go ahead. I think the question will continue to be raised on this page until it is addressed in the policy; currently all we have is the Undue weight section. The village pump is for general policy discussions. This is specific to NPOV and therefore belongs on this page. Bensaccount 22:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand the purpose of the Village Pump then. This is not the place to create new aspects of policy to address this shortcoming. – Saxifrage ✎ 22:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken. If there is a shortcoming specific to the NPOV policy, this is precisely the place to address it. Bensaccount 22:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
To change NPOV policy (rather than just the policy page), you actually need to show consensus support from the entire project. The entire project does not watch this page, ergo, this is not the place to do it. The Village Pump is watched by many more, therefore it is a better place than here. Ultimately, even a discussion there would eventually have to undergo some kind of purpose-created promotional process in order to get enough exposure to guage the consensus of the whole project. – Saxifrage ✎ 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not my intention to change the policy against your will. Bensaccount 22:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
But it is your intention to discuss policy rather than the policy page here against the will of the rest of the editors. A use of this page for which it is not intended nor suited. Am I mistaken? – Saxifrage ✎ 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
If the undue weight section of the policy page were distorted, would that not be related to the policy page? Bensaccount 16:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me explain that Saxifrage is using a very distorted argument. He starts with the strange idea that a policy page that describes a policy is the same as a WP article about this policy. Sure, if you have a WP article about a company or a person, you do not argue in its talk page against the company or the person, especially not if your intention is to improve the company or the person. You can only discuss how to best describe the person or the company as it is now, in a neutral way. If we were in the talk page of an article about the NPOV policy (an interesting topic for a new WP article), Saxifrage argument would apply, but we are not. Saxifrage is just confused. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 17:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
If it were actually a misrepresentation of policy, sure. I believe that most here are of the position that it's not a misrepresentation of policy, though. – Saxifrage ✎ 19:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that you still hold to your view that we are violating policy even though you have no argument anymore. Remember that three editors did not agree with your view and five did agree. There is no indication of a large majority here. However, unless you expect a super large majority, it is pointless to count because even a large majority should not suppress the opinions of a minority when they express their opinions without violating any policy. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 21:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Saxifrage, I will reply in your user page. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 22:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk please undo your opiniated move and save that discussion to the archives, as it should in accordance with Wikipedai rules (I don't know how to do that). Harald88 10:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, archiving is not a problem when it is done in the normal way. What is the problem is the expression of a strongly non NPOV attitude toward others views. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 12:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and autobiography

There is no reference to the view (recently endorsed by ArbCom ruling) that WP:NPOV indicates that you should not normally write about subjects in which you have a personal involvement - yourself, your family, your company, your website. That seems to me to need some kind of comment. Am I missing a place where it's already covered? Just zis Guy you know? 12:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. What do you have in mind, language-wise? FeloniousMonk 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK I have seen quite the opposite: Wikipedia encourages that knowledgable people contribute to articles (usually someone who is knowledgable is heavily involved, emotionally and/or career wise), and also that people avoiding OR by publishing on Wikipedia after they manage to get their views published in a respectable source. It looks to me that a rule against contributing to information about oneself is incompatible with such guidelines that encourage expert information. Harald88 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The distinction is your company as opposed to your expertise, for example if you are a medical doctor who specializes in cardiac care, you are an asset to an article about hearts, heart disease, etc. If you happen to work for ABC Heart Clinic, you would be considered potentially biased on the ABC Heart Clinic article. It is an extension of the WP:AUTO guideline. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The potential bias problem applies to all such cases - it's not even a potential, but a general problem (think of specialists on evolution vs. specialists on creation/creationism!). I don't know of a rule that forbids specialists to make edits in articles that contain information which could affect the credibility of their publications, and which they would thus be tempted to alter. Instead, editors are simply asked to contribute with their knowledge, and to try to compensate for their bias.
Thus the WP:AUTO guideline must not creep into Wikipedia policy. Harald88 17:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't such bias get covered by NPOV? – Saxifrage ✎ 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure it does. Thus I'm against such a subtle change of policy. OTOH, IMO there is nothing against adding a link to the advice as given on WP:AUTO (which is less imposing than what JzG proposes here below). Harald88 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. It sounded like you were advocating the opposite. – Saxifrage ✎ 21:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Which ArbCom? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
There are several that are relevant:
FeloniousMonk 21:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
What I had in mind was something along the lines of "if you are personally involved in a subject (yourself, your family, your business), your point of view is unlikely to be entirely neutral. In such cases it is best to make your comments on the relevant Talk page and leave it to others to edit the article itself." Just zis Guy you know? 00:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that any editor is welcome to edit any article providing they do so within the framework of content policies of Wikipedia. Note that WP:NPOV is a policy while WP:AUTO is a guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Except that in WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN we explicitly discourage them from doing so, and even Jimbo got dinged for it. Just zis Guy you know? 22:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Should this cover the situation where the subject of an article, their employee or someone close to them, endeavours to slant the article while remaining anonymous? "It would probably be a good idea to identify yourself on the article's talk page with the Notable Wikipedian notice." doesn't do much to discourage this, and it could be helpful to have a stronger requirement for contributors to declare an interest. ...dave souza, talk 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
"Slanting an article" is contrary to policy regardless if an editor is an associate, a detractor, or a supporter of a certain political affiliation, religion, church, company, organization, etc. Declaration of bias/interest is good manners, but not a requirement. Many people use aliases for their usernames and we have a strong privacy policy in place to protect editors from others disclosing their personal details to prevent harassment. I would argue that WP:NPOV and WP:V provide a very strong foundation already as they are, and have served us admirably well so far. Also note that WP:VAIN describes the situation about "associates" as it pertains to "little known" companies or subjects, while WP:AUTO applies "to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but editors hiding their conflict of interest behind the privacy policy merely to side-step the existing limitations on their contributing to articles in which they have a stake is a very real and disruptive problem. Believe me. The current arrangement encourages dishonesty and rewards the most deceptive. Responsible investigation of possible biases and conflicts of interest is an integral part of basic administrative duties of policing Wikipedia content. Aspects of an editor's identity that are readily available by way of a Google search cannot be expected to remain private when their subject falls under scrutiny in connection with questionable or biased editing. JzG's proposed sentence or two is consistant with other policy and guideline, and adds no new concepts or restrictions, and so seems seems reasonable to include here. Particularly since this is one of the few policies that is almost certainly read by every editor eventually. FeloniousMonk 09:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jossi; on this one I join the "statu quo gang" (except for the allowance to add a link of course). Harald88 13:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


FM: the problem I see is with enforcement. For example, I have chosen to declare my bias/affiliation in my talk page. I also post under my real name. But as you well know, many editors either edit anonymously, under an alias, and/or do not disclose their affiliations. So, the question is how would you enforce/police this? Will you have editors-as-detectives trying to ascertain the identity of a user and then his/her affliation? How do you propose to conducte "responsible investigations"? Who will do this? Who will audit the process? etc, etc, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In truth a link may be all that's required; what I want to achieve is that anybody looking up NPOV is made aware of the special problems which attach to personal or corporate autobiography. I'd rather people declared their interest and gave good edit summaries than nibbled away at the edges from a sock account. I guess that declaring your interest on the Talk page is general good practice... Just zis Guy you know? 23:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In practice this sort of detective work just isn't necessary. Any user who persistently injects POV into an article is eventually contained by application of NPOV, editor consensus, and dispute resolution. This happens regardless of why they are biased—having an affiliation with the article subject is just a subset of the ways in which an editor can POV-push. – Saxifrage ✎ 23:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I can see the reasoning behind both yours and Jossi's thinking here, and I'm not disputing it, you're both right. It just seems to me looking at the Congessional staff imbroglio that had the affilation been discovered and dealt with early on, much unnecessary work and disruption could have been avoided. FeloniousMonk 17:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. I do think it's lovely when someone tips their hand and saves us all a lot of work. I'm just not sure that that (rather considerable) advantage to the project warrants any privacy compromises. – Saxifrage ✎ 19:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sharing few words

Greetings. I am here as a volunteer for last one year, and I have been thinking about the Project from various angles. Sometimes, certain words of Sir Winston Churchill have come to my mind. I would like to share the same:

  • ” I cannot pretend to feel impartial about colors. I rejoice with the brilliant ones and am genuinely sorry for the poor browns.”
  • ”There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true.”

I have also heard somewhere that “the truth does not depend on a consensus of opinion.” --Bhadani 06:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Many people get confused about what NPOV and verifiability means. This is my understanding: As editors we are not necessarily concerned with asserting "The Truth", or applying value judgments about if there is such a thing or not. WP:NPOV and WP:V may be in the beginning counter-intuitive concepts to grasp, but these are concept that have enabled Wikipedia to attempt to become the repository of all human knowledge and make it available for free. Has Wikipedia achieved that? Of course not. Will it ever be the case? don't think so. But without such a principle as WP:NPOV and WP:V, this attempt would have never had chance, and most surely end up drowned in the sea of partisanship, politics, advocacy, and what not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

website claims ""Some argue" is Wikipedianese for "I think". It is a convenient way to bypass NPOV."

QUOTES FROM:

"Some argue" is Wikipedianese for "I think". It is a convenient way to bypass NPOV.
See it for yourself via Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=some+argue+site%3Awikipedia.org
Real search results as of 17-Oct-05 23:34 EST:

Some argue that a more appropriate standard should be fairness and accuracy
Some would argue that humans have an amount of hubris
some argue that hate speech must be regulated to protect members of groups.
Some argue that small gardens and greenhouses should be favored
Some argue that anti-LGBT prejudice is immoral or unwise above and beyond the effects on that class of people.
Some people would argue that the movement is too closely related to communism
Some argue that even terrorism has undergone globalization
Some argue that this is an advantage
Some argue that those who set up access points without adding security measures are offering their connection, sometimes unintentionally, to the community.
Some argue that a reading of the first two chapters of Genesis produces the impression of two separate accounts of the same event.

Well, this is something I want to bring up, the "some argue" thing. I tried it though, and it didn't work for me. DyslexicEditor 08:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it's true that this happens a lot. But it isn't WP:NPOV. The important thing is whether or not the article answers the question "who argues?", in principle by quoting reputable/reliable sources. Perhaps this type of search can be used as a standard method to hunt down possible (or even probable?) NPOV/NOR violations. Perhaps, as it may well reduce to a method to hunt down articles on controversial subject where weasel words are used to keep the peace... Just for fun I checked one of these statements, Some argue that even terrorism has undergone globalization found in Globalization. It seems this particular statement is unsourced. I think it won't be difficult to find such sources though. One may even find that MANY have argued the point or that it is generally believed. Some other instances of some... in the same article are already sourced by the way. AvB ÷ talk 09:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Update - just added some citations to this statement in Globalization and changed "some argue" to "it is often argued". More importantly, it did not pinpoint a serious WP:NPOV violation - just a very sourcable fact that wasn't sourced. AvB ÷ talk 10:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a very valid complaint. Using that kind of wording, called weasel words, is generally frowned upon and should almost always be changed. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. – Saxifrage ✎ 18:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, some argue that "some argue" is not NPOV, but some argue otherwise. People aren't NPOV; articles are. - Keith D. Tyler 19:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I talked a bit about weasel words in its talk page, going off this thread. DyslexicEditor 01:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Last paragraph of Reasoning behind NPOV section

In Archive 013 this paragraph was addressed, but has not been fixed. It seems to assert that "dogmatism/dogmatic institutions" and "Totalitarian governments" are bad, and that "liberation" is good. This seems to be out of keeping with the NPOV policy itself. I think this paragraph can be reworked to reflect NPOV as follows:

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their own minds. If we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy, the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree that this is a good thing.

--MonkeeSage 09:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted, MonkeeSage. I would support the rewording. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Another yea vote for it. – Saxifrage ✎ 20:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Jon Awbrey 20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Object: "Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia" is no judgment of "badness", and certainly not pushing a POV about any specific entity.
It's even a current news item that authoritarian governments tend to be against elaborate, uncensored information. Thus it's factual (and clarifying) that Wikipedia promotes a policy/phiilosophy that is contrary to that of such entities.
On top of that, this serves as a warning for possible sources of sabotage attempts against individual articles as well and even Wikipedia itself - which is potentially of practical use. Keep. Harald88 22:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
To the contrary. We aim to offer high-quality, uncensored information. This is a value in itself. That this is contrary to the philosophy of "authoritarian governments" is an unnecessary conjecture. If it is so, much the better. But spelling it out is counterproductive. We push for free knowledge. No compromise. Let the world see how it copes with that. Support. --Stephan Schulz 00:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Walk the talk; Eat one's own dog food, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Harald88, I agree that there is nothing against NPOV in mentioning a fact that, as you seem to suggest, is verifiable. Jossi might be wrong when he says that it is [only] a conjecture. However, for many this kind of facts, especially their application to Wikipedia, appear as a conjecture. Therefore, I agree with Stephan Schulz that it is counterproductive to refer to this kind of facts here. -Lumière 01:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Harald88: But the current wording does not leave people open to form their own value judgments about Totalitarian governments, dogmatism/dogmatic institutions, and liberation. It suggests (asserts) that they should be against the former two and for the later. Now one might say that my suggested reworking still doesn't allow people to make up their own mind about the issue of making up their own mind, but it is nonsensical to make up your own mind that you should not make up your own mind, so I don't think that is a real issue. --MonkeeSage 04:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
That's true. It maybe against NPOV to mention a fact that is verifiable, if this is only one side of the dispute. Harald88 suggests that facts and sources could be provided to identify these governments and institutions, but then it would be against NPOV to mention only one side of the story. OTOH, these "totalitarian governments" and "dogmatic institutions" are not identified in the current wording. Therefore, as it is, it does not really violate NPOV. IMO, the real problem is that, because of this vagueness, the paragraph appears to be based on presumptions and conjectures. -Lumière 06:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
How do you mean? There is no "story" and certainly no "dispute", just the undisputed fact that Jimbo's policy is incompatible with that of some other forces in this world - that's noteworthy. People can form their opinion about such entities when reading the corresponding articles; this NPOV matter is related to Jimbo's aims. It can't be held that the aim to make a neutral, uncensored encyclopedia is non-political and "neutral" in itself. If this additional clarification about Jimbo's aims is removed here, it should go some other place (but where?). Harald88 07:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Harald88: Is the incompatibility you assert a fact or an opinion? Isn't it possible that such forces arise from groups of people making up their own mind that such forces are good and beneficial and should exist? It seems better to just assert the fact that the NPOV policy promotes personal responsibility in decision making, and leave people to form their own views of the various world forces and their relationships to the policy. --MonkeeSage 08:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who looks at the news knows that for example China has an active policy against uncensored information, which led to changes in Google and questions about it in human right groups. That such forces exist (and not only in governments but also in religions etc.) is factual, and I'm actually surprised that such a well known fact of life is being questioned. Harald88 19:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Clearer, less unnecessary presumptions - much better. Bensaccount 22:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support. Sure! Hard to disagree on this one. -Lumière 23:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Support but I need to note that I also fully support Harald88's comments. Actually I had posted something along these lines myself yesterday, or so I thought - apparently cybergremlins at work again. I support the change, but not the rationale outlined by the majority. I would be interested to hear Jimbo's view too. Because, and I hate to say this as a rather new editor in such illustrious company, the current majority view outlined above reveals a slight misunderstanding of a basic property of the NPOV policy; a property this exact paragraph tries to convey. My reason for supporting the change is simply to get rid of the appearance it creates: people will think of it as self-congratulatory behavior, applauding a particular POV and putting down others. It is a good example, but it only works for those who already understand it. Harald is right in proposing a replacement. I feel some work needs to be done to better explain this important point. AvB ÷ talk 11:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
oppose this further bowdlerisation of the NPOV policy page, while too supportive of the idea that NPOV is synonym to "being less explicit" - the NPOV policy is rather about being *explicit* on anything, keeping explicit viewpoints in balance as explained in the policy. For this, I think it best to formulate the NPOV policy itself sharp as a razor blade. So: siding with Harald on this one. --Francis Schonken 12:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
But it is not explicit at all. The current wording is vague. Which are these totalitarian governements? Even if we identify them, why do we believe that they specifically care about Wikipedia? Consider AvB point, and ask yourself if the current wording might appear presumptuous on that regard? Which are these dogmatic institutions? Please identify them, and we will see if being sharp as a razor blade will create the right effect. -Lumière 13:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
No need for pejoratives like bowdlerian (I could just as easily throw out "establishmentarianism"). Is libertarianism and the overthrow of totaliarian regimes a fundimental part of the NPOV policy, or simply a (possible) consequence of it? I thought the point of Wikipedia was simply to present a public source of uncensored information! Then what is imprecise about my proposed paragraph? The description of the NPOV policy should not be used to push a POV or political agenda. If the policy ends up supporting a certain POV or agenda by consequence, then so be it – but the reader should not be led by the nose to such conclusions. --MonkeeSage 13:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The possible overturn or sabotage of Wikipedia by disagreeing powers should not be confused with the possible overturn of disagreeing powers by Wikipedia supporters! FYI, there are people in this world who don't appreciate uncensored information and who even (and with some succes) fight it. Note that I don't insist that that point should remain at that place; it may be put in another article (but which article deals with the history and motivation of Wikipedia?). Harald88 19:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be great if you could do something about "non-bias policy." "Bias" is a noun--the adjective is "biased," but that doesn't fit either, and the phrase as is seems meaningless. Is "non-bias" just a rewording of "neutral point of view"? · rodii · 13:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rodii: I didn't create the expression, it was already in the existing paragraph. But I will say that "non-bias policy" is a noun-phrase, and means the same as "the policy of non-bias," 'non-bias' being the name of the policy; so it seems to be grammatically correct to me. --MonkeeSage 14:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I guess I was overreacting to the increasing use of "bias" to mean "biased" I have been observing, but that doesn't apply here. But... is there a "policy of non-bias," as distinct from WP:NPOV? If NPOV is what's intended, call it that. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. · rodii · 15:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You have a point. BTW, I haven't seen the Razor stated accurately in some time! Kudos! --MonkeeSage 16:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose When we come right down to it, requiring NPOV is a point of view, one that holds that readers should be trusted to make up their own minds after being presented a representative range of information and views on a subject. That does put Wikipedia in oppostion to any governments or institutions that try to control what people think by controlling what they read and hear, and I think we should say that explicitly. – Donald Albury(Talk) 14:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That readers should be trusted to make up their own minds is a different issue than whether certain governments or institutions stop people from doing that. The essence of the policy, as I understand it, is to promote the free flow of information. If it happens that this contradicts the policies of a given goverment or institute, people should be allowed to make that call for themselves. Some may believe that governments and institutions which others think stiffle the free flow of information, do not, and in their case they may choose to think of them differently than others of us. We should allow them that opportunity. --MonkeeSage 14:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I want to juxtapose two sentences:
"the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves."
and from the antepenultimate paragraph:
"To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct."
In the strict sense of the word, a theory is the product of a process that aspires to scientific standards. If two or more theories exist to address the same subject matter and they disagree, this must be because there are unsatisfactory elements in each theory. Put another way, if one theory actually offers a comprehensive explanation accepted by the majority in that field of expertise, it can only have achieved that eminence by successfully critiquing all the other theories and exposing their deficiencies. Neutrality is only achieved by identifying the respective strengths and weaknesses of each competing theory fairly. Indeed, stating that there is a theory which posits P and not identifying the problems in the methodology or the application of particular methods is, in itself, POV. Readers can only form opinions if they are presented with all the relevant evidence. Thus, either or both sentences should be modified to reflect the fact that this policy is not so much aimed at theories, but rather at unscientific opinions which are not capable of being verified in the same way as theories. David91 14:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be better to say "accounts of" rather than "theories on"--less semantic baggage that way. · rodii · 15:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... David's analysis is idealistic, and a bit faulty: it is quite common to have competing theories, none of them necessarily "unsatisfactory". Until it has been shown that one is faulty, the two co-exist, but often (for non-scientific reasons), one is more popular. The same happens in technology (famous example where a similar economic idealism didn't work: Betamax vs. VHS).
Also, I agree that neutrality is only achieved by identifying the respective strengths and weaknesses of each competing theory fairly. That scientific point of view is very close to NPOV policy, except that with NPOV policy the more popular view is allowed more space.
Thus in Wikipedia it's considered fair to give more attention to the more popular view, even if it's wrong (simply to avoid the burden of original research). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald88 (talk • contribs)

I see more clearly why I support a change. The problem is that the current wording suggests the naive view that there are totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions in one side and "good" (democratic?) governements and neutral (atheist?) institutions on the other side. My POV is that every governement, institution and community has its share of totalitarism and dogmatism, even the Wikipedia community. I think the policy is there to protect Wikipedia against totalitarism and dogmatism everywhere (including inside us), not against specific governments and institutions. -Lumière 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To me it doesn't suggest anything about "good" or "bad", nor does it give any judgment about democracies. How would you reformulate it to avoid such a misunderstanding? Harald88 19:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the democratic countries are the good ones was just an example. Even the idea that Wikipedia is a completely neutral institution in opposition to a completely dogmatic institution is naive. Every institution has its share of dogmatism and totalitarism. These enemies do not only exist outside of us. This is due to the nature of human beings. Obviously, dogmatism and totalitarism inside the Wikipedia community is also a problem. If we don't acknowledge that, we are most likely a little more on the dogmatic and totalitarism side than we think. Here is a proposed wording

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Our neutral point of view policy is opposed to totalitarism and dogmatism everywhere, in any government, organisation or community: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

The emphasis indicates that it is the modified part. However, english is not my mother tongue, so a better wording is certainly possible. BTW, I still strongly believe that we must better understand how the NPOV policy, especially the Undue weight section, works in practice to help us achieve this fight against totalitarism and dogmatism everywhere, especially amongst groups of wikipedian editors that work on specific articles. -Lumière 20:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To keep things simple, I am still supporting the proposed wording of MonkeeSage. The above proposal was only a reply to Harald88. If others want to do something with it, fine. -Lumière 21:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Will change it on 3/20/2006 with 7:3 support currently. I'm pushing back the date so that Jimbo / other Wikipedia seniority can weigh in if they want to. --MonkeeSage 14:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"please make sure that changes you make to this policy reflect consensus before you make them" - since when is 7:3 "consensus"? However, I think that we can reach consensus on this. Harald88 23:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I think 4 days is awfully short for a poll, if that is what this is (as is implied by your counting of 'votes'). If you rush this, others who come late to the discussion may feel that a 'true consensus' was not reached. I think a wider consensus can be reached by allowing more discussion. I, for one, think we can get rid of 'totalitarian', and say something like 'governments and institutions often try to influence or control the availability of information in order to affect public opinion of themselves and/or of others. The mission of Wikipedia to provide a neutral point of view on all subjects may conflict with the aims and actions of governments and other institutions.' – Donald Albury(Talk) 23:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Good idea - sounds good to me! support for that. Harald88 09:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I don't have a problem with waiting. How long do you suggest we wait? --MonkeeSage 09:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

For those who disagree, I have three questions:

  1. Is the alleged fact that totalitarian governments and dogmatism/dogmatic institutions are contrary to the NPOV policy, an essential part of the motivation for the policy itself? In other words, is the reason for the policy to preserve the free flow of information here on Wikipedia – or to try to change the world? I think it is the former.
  2. If by consequence, the policy could change the world (or how people view it), do we need to point out this possibility? I mean, isn't another possible consequence that terrorists will gain information that helps them carry out their work? Would you say that we should include that possible consequence as well? If not, then doesn't it show bias to state what one feels are "good" consequences and leave out the "bad"? Wouldn't it be better to just state the motive of personal responsibility and let people come to their own conclusions about the possible consequences, whether positive or negative?
  3. What is meant by the very generalized terms "totalitarian" and "dogmatic" – and do they cover every government or institution that might be characterized that way? For example, would most members of the Roman Catholic Church (and I use a hostile example to illustrate the point, myself being a Reformed Protestant!) agree that their "dogmatic institution" is contrary to the NPOV policy, or that their own "dogmatism" prevents them from following the policy? And whatever their beliefs may be, in keeping with the reasoning behind the policy, shouldn't they be allowed to come to their own conclusions without having them handed to them by us?

Those are my masin concerns about the current wording. I don't really care if it's my revision or another than is adopted, I just hope whatever is used meets these criteria/questions. --MonkeeSage 09:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(1,2) I already pointed out that MonkeeSage read it the wrong way round; and (3) as indicated above, I support the proposed improved phrasing by David that neatly avoids such misunderstanding as well as possible overgeneralisation or hurt feelings by people who regard their favourite institution as being dogmatic or totalitarian. Harald88 09:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I've got the wrong end of the stick, but for the sake of argument, let's say I do. In that case you should not be averse to something like this:
There is a reason not to commit ourselves to this policy. Radical liberation groups and terrorists everywhere might find reason to utilize Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, hope that readers will not stand for any form of intellectual oppression. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, allow for the dissemination of dangerous information without any qualifications. Freedom of information can provide a catalyst for violent acts of radical social liberation and terrorism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a bad thing.
I somehow think you would be against it, though (as would I, for the same reasons stated above). I don't think you could be accused of 'reading it the wrong way round' if you thought this was POV pushing or agendizing, but I've basically only reworked the paragraph to include some possible negative consequences of the policy (at least negative in my POV). The reader doesn't need to be told about the possible consequences of the policy, good or bad, or its perceived relationship to some group or other; all they need to know is that the policy is aimed to promote the free flow of information here on Wikipedia, and they can draw their own conclusions about everything else. --MonkeeSage 10:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
You are right that I don't favour adding such a statement, but not for the reason you think - obviously because you still have it the wrong way round: it's irrelevant for Wikipedia if radical liberation groups want to use it, as that won't harm Wikipedia (even not indirectly: all the information is already available anyway). What is relevant for Wikipdia and its editors is what could harm Wikipedia. However, if you want to add remarks about "good" or "bad" of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, that's an entirely different matter, and not yet taken care of in your proposal. On that point, it may be argued that the text is, also with your proposed changes, non-neutral. But it should be easy to change that into a more neutral phrasing. Harald88 14:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
But to say I have it backwards is to imply that the policy is to protect Wikipedia from impositions on the free flow of information, which is just the negative form of saying that the policy is meant to provide for the free flow of information: but the current wording doesn't seem to be aimed at protecting Wikipedia, it seems to be harpooning external organizations which are perceived by some editors to be at odds with the policy. In any case, as I said above, I don't care what form of the paragraph is adopted, so long as it doesn't appear to be a political/social statement about what the policy may lead to. I think it is best to keep the description of the motive for the policy within the context of Wikipedia itself and let the readers come to their own conclusions about the relationships of external entities to the policy. --MonkeeSage 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
No, that remark is certainly not about the purpose of the policy, but about possible reactions to (and against) the policy. And we seem to be heading for a consensus on ways to improve it.
Nevertheless, I feel that you have led us astray: as some have pointed out in the recent past, Wikipedia's policies are not to be applied on wikipdia policies themselves. This is simple to understand: the policies are a kind of political statements, and definitely POV (mostly Jimbo's). It's also easy to see: It should also easy to see: if the notability and NOR requirements were applied on such policies, they would have had to be deleted! Instead, the policies themselves are not encyclopedic content, eventhough encyclopedia articles may be written about such policies, after they have become famous. In fact the subject of Wikipedia NPOV may be worth an encyclopdia article by now, to whcih of course the policies muct be applied. But these insider user manuals are definitely not meant to be "encyclopedic", and may actually be very POV (thus non-neutral), even "soapbox"! Harald88 20:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the policies themselves are not NPOV, that was not how I have framed the issue. I have requested that the description of the policies adhere to the policies. That is a completely different issue. And it is easy to describe the NPOV policy in accordance with said policy. Further, the current description has nothing to do with describing the policy, except in the very loose sense of naming possible consequences of the policy outside of Wikipedia. I do not see why we should state anything further about the motivation behind the policy than that it is aimed to guarentee the free flow of information here on Wikipedia. Why do we have to speculate about what might or might not happen in the world because of the policy, or how some group might or might not be related to the policy? --MonkeeSage 04:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that the description of the policies inside the policies is a completely different issue from the policies. Editors who disagree with the aims of Wikipedia risk ending up frustrating themselves, creating edit wars, making overwork for administrators, and being banned. I guess that such people better stay away from Wikipedia altogether; it is a misunderstanding that the text should be "neutral" about that. This is not an encyclopedia article! A clarifying phrase in the policy about that may be helpful: Just as there is no suggestion that these policies intend to reflect NOR and Notability, likewise there should also be no suggestion that these policies are meant to reflect NPOV. They are definitely Wikipedia POV.
My suggested improvement of the last paragraph, also taking into acount MonkeeSage's and Donald's suggestions (putting back the political statement, and correcting the last sentence that didn't really "go"):

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their own minds, allowing for intellectual independence. We, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions. The mission of Wikipedia to provide a "neutral point of view" on all subjects conflicts with the aims and actions of a variety of governments, institutions and individuals who try to influence or control information in order to affect the public opinion. As a consequence, there have been and will be actions that go contrary to our NPOV policy. If we succeed in imposing this policy to present multiple viewpoints fairly without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, this will liberate us from attempts to control our opinions. We trust that those working on Wikipedia will agree that this is a good thing. Harald88 10:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that, though I'm still of the opinion that the KISS principle regarding the description of the policies – especially their motives – is the best way to avoid unnecessarily offending editors (and possibly provoking them to intentionally break the policies because they feel they are being unfairly targeted by them – as if the policies are there to "get them" rather than validly serve Wikipedia). Of course, that's just my POV. --MonkeeSage 11:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with MonkeeSage that bringing forward the good aspects of free flow of information and ignoring its possible negative aspects make us look a little bit biased. It looks as if we believe that we have found the ultimate solution to the problems of the world, when in fact an encyclopedia is just a tool that can be bad or good depending on who uses it.
Here I present a related issue with the new wording proposed by Donald Albury. It is an improvement to avoid words such as "totalitarian" and "dogmatic" to qualify some unspecified governments and institutions. This opposition between totalitarian Vs non totalitarian governments and between dogmatic Vs non dogmatic institutions was really not necessary. However, there is still an even more problematic opposition in the proposed wording, an opposition between Wikipedia and the rest of the world in the sentence "The mission of Wikipedia to provide a neutral point of view on all subjects may conflict with the aims and actions of governments and other institutions." (The emphasis is to point out what I mean.) Isn't it a little bit presumptuous to put Wikipedia in such a position? Isn't the policy also there because editors inside Wikipedia naturally have their own bias? As suggested by MonkeeSage, Wikipedia is a tool that can be used in different ways by everyone. If we consider Wikipedia as a tool, the best we can do is to improve the tool so that it cannot too easily be used to harm, but can easily be useful. Is the purpose of this opposition to avoid looking at our real status as a tool while we focus on the evil outside world? -Lumière 12:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Simple improvement: add "some" in front of "governments and other institutions"(I already poined out twice that this is factual and aimed at protecting the aims of Wikipedia). Note that inversely, this can't affect representation of the views of what may be seen as "dogmatic" institutions, as fair weight is not based on "authority" but on popularity. Harald88 14:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought about using some, but it seems to me that almost all (that's to allow for the possibility that there actually exists a counter-example) governments and institutions are concerned about how the public perceives them, and try to either put a positive image of themselves in the public's mind, or (less commonly) to hide their existance or their activities from the public. This may range from relatively benign public relations efforts to full-blown censorship and indoctrination. Even Wikipedia is concerned about its public image. There is a continuum, and any division into free and totalitarian requires a decision on where to draw the line. Of course, to anyone who disagrees with where the line is drawn, it is an arbitrary line. As Wikipedia is striving for NPOV, it can easily end up goring everyone's oxen. – Donald Albury(Talk) 14:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
"many" is OK, not? But there is a confusion about Wikipedia being NPOV, see my other remarks. In oparticular, NPOV policy is not NPOV, and an alternative POV is applied in a competing open source encyclopdia that has a sympathetic POV policy instead (what's its name again?!). Harald88 21:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I was just trying to make the point that 'totalitarian' and 'oppresive' governments and institutions are not the only ones trying to shape the flow of information, and that Wikipedia may well run afoul of such efforts. As for NPOV in the NPOV policy, I saw your comments on Wiki policies not necessarily applying to Wiki policies, and agree. – Donald Albury(Talk) 23:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Harald88, I guess my problem is that I see a difference between the aims of Wikipedia and what it really is as a tool. I have no problem that we explain the aims of Wikipedia, but not in a way that ignores how editors and readers can actually use it as a tool. The current wording does much more than only explaining the aims. It says that Wikipedia is an obstacle for governments and other organisations that might attempt to present biased information. This univocally states that the goal is achieved. How do we know that? It is reasonable to say that Wikipedia contributes to free information, but this is not enough to claim that it is an obstacle to these governments and organisations. Not all information passes and some information that passes can be misleading. It may actually help them. Consider the facts that Wikipedia must address challenges that come from its internal editors. These editors might be biased because they are members of these organisations or work for gorvernments, but also simply because it is the nature of human beings to be sometimes irrational when they evaluate different views. In fact, the aim of Wikipedia should be to be an obstacle to any misleading information or to any suppression of information, irrespectively of whether it comes from a government, an organization or just a group of editors. -Lumière 15:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Does it state that the goal is achieved?! I didn't notice that, and indeed it should not say so. But that free information flow is an obstacle to those who want to prevent free information flow is undebatable (and not the purpose of that remark anyway).
The point that I (too optimistally) had the illusion of having fully been clarified by David was that there is a danger for Wikipedia from certain powers, and it's good to be aware of that. That particular aim is not to be an obstacle, but to remain unharmed in the face of possible counter actions; awareness of which policies may cause possibly damaging counter actions can therefore be beneficial.
Apart of that, Lumiere reminds me of the fact that some other kind of powers have a different tactic of biasing information: as example, the USA has (officially, it had) implemanted a policy of spreading large scale misinformation, in order to overwhelm correct information. I suspect that they applied that already a few years ago when the misinformation about the president of Venezuela's demission (when he was kidnapped) was spread by all the western newsmedia that I know, and followed by no apology from anyone. Thus both censorship (did you read todays news about Belarus?) and misinformation are anti-NPOV tools that are currently in use.
Thus Lumiere touched another subject (probably we should start it as one below). Policy that deals with such threats is currently lacking; it seems to me that the current NPOV policy is fair game for those disinformation strategies... Harald88 20:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
"Neutrality" or "independence" – obliquely, Lumière points to the solution to this somewhat politicised debate. He refers to Wiki as a tool. In the right hands, a tool has social utility in making or building something of benefit. In the wrong hands, a tool can be a weapon that destroys what has been made or built. It seems to me that neutrality is an end in itself. How the information may or may not be used is not for us to prejudge. All that we should strive to do is to become the best source of information we can become. Seeking to identify other motives is not constructive and actually introduces a particular POV into the process of constructing the tool, i.e that we build something that can be used to attack social institutions that we disapprove of. There are a lot of assumptions in this stance that would have to be very carefuuly justified before it could ever become acceptable. David91 16:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Well said. --MonkeeSage 04:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Support-I think Totalitarian and Dogmatic are violations of NPOV in and of themselves. The re-wording, while it might not be perfect, is a vast improvement. --Kahlfin 21:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've been letting the topic marinate for a few days, and only one more vote has been presented. We're at 8:3 in favor on change currently. Do we need a formal poll before the paragraph is changed, or what? As I said above, I'm not pushing for my version as the best, but I (and apparently others) do think that some change is needed. Let's get this wrapped up, one way or another. --MonkeeSage 21:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the 8:3 vote for change? To me it appears that we reached a consensus on the article's singling out of "Totalitarian" and "Dogmatic": it is better to replace it with a less specific phrasing (see my suggestion here above). Harald88 21:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I count 8 support (not counting my own of course) and 3 object. As I said, I'm OK with your version, though I still think it's overkill. I just want to get the issue resolved. So do we need a formal poll, or do we go with your version (and how many people support it?)...or what? --MonkeeSage 22:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Possible that some have overlooked my compromise proposal above which is conservative and took into account several suggestions:
There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their own minds, allowing for intellectual independence. We, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions. The mission of Wikipedia to provide a "neutral point of view" on all subjects conflicts with the aims and actions of a variety of governments, institutions and individuals who try to influence or control information in order to affect the public opinion. As a consequence, there have been and will be actions that go contrary to our NPOV policy. If we succeed in imposing this policy to present multiple viewpoints fairly without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, this will liberate us from attempts to control our opinions. We trust that those working on Wikipedia will agree that this is a good thing.
And perhaps a little more tweaking: IMO the phrase "We, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions" can be left out, as its essence is already contained in the preceeding sentence (and it's less pompous without it).
Instead of voting, consensus implies to have (almost) no objections. Let's wait one or two more days for possible objections; and if none, then just go ahead! Harald88 22:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. :) I agree about the redundant sentence. --MonkeeSage 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm weakly opposed to removing the phrase "We, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions". When re-reading the policy (& doing some copyediting) I noticed that the phrase serves a purpose here when read by newbies. It enlists them and creates "ownership" (of the encyclopedia, not a specific article). It's definitely pompous but I think I've remedied that by using the word editor instead of creator. The repeat emphasizes that "we" want and need the reader to decide. AvB ÷ talk 08:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Few days later

Alright, I updated the paragraph to Harald's version, with minor copyedits: removed "in order to affect the public opinion" because the policy would also be opposed to those who try to control information in because they find it offensive and so on; qualified the "liberate us" sentence with "here" since the success of enforcing the policy here is not a guarentee that we will be liberated anywhere else. The final result is:

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their own minds, allowing for intellectual independence. We, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions. The mission of Wikipedia to provide a "neutral point of view" on all subjects conflicts with the aims and actions of a variety of governments, institutions and individuals who try to influence or control information. As a consequence, there have been and will be actions that go contrary to our NPOV policy. If we succeed in imposing this policy to present multiple viewpoints fairly without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, this will liberate us from attempts to control our opinions here. We trust that those working on Wikipedia will agree that this is a good thing.

--MonkeeSage 08:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Still object - I didn't change my "object" to a "support" did I? Sorry for making my comment about the rv in the wrong section, see below. --Francis Schonken 09:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The above isn't nearly the version to which you objected. Probably you overlooked the continuation of this discussion. Please indicate what you find insufficiently sharp about this version. Do you think that it's really necessary to single out Totalitarian governments in this NPOV policy description, and that it becomes insufficiently "sharp" without it? Harald88 09:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, was still waiting if anything I might see as an improvement might pop up from this discussion (which it didn't). Anyway, I think:

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their own minds, allowing for intellectual independence. We, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions. The mission of Wikipedia to provide a "neutral point of view" on all subjects conflicts with the aims and actions of a variety of governments, institutions and individuals who try to influence or control information. As a consequence, there have been and will be actions that go contrary to our NPOV policy. If we succeed in imposing this policy to present multiple viewpoints fairly without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, this will liberate us from attempts to control our opinions here. We trust that those working on Wikipedia will agree that this is a good thing.

unecessary verbose, if comparing to the original

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

e.g. "[...] conflicts with the aims and actions of a variety of governments, institutions and individuals who try to influence or control information." is a more convoluted phrasing than necessary (and than it was in the older version).

Instead of sharp the alterate text is also more blunt, e.g. talking about "imposing a policy" is more dogmatic than anything found in the other version of the text (which talks about "adhering to", and thus avoids to contradict itself on point of not being dogmatic)...

In sum, I see no improvement, only a slightly less adequate formulation. --Francis Schonken 12:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What about this proposal.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their own minds, allowing for intellectual independence. Governments, institutions and individuals everywhere may have the tendency to influence or control information. Because every one may become an editor of Wikipedia, this tendency may also prevail within Wikipedia. If, despite this tendency, we succeed as a community in adhering to this policy to present multiple viewpoints fairly without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, this will suggest that we, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism bigotry and fanaticism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

It does not say that we must succeed in "imposing the policy". I believe the phrases are as simple as in the original version. It respects the main idea of the original version, which is that (beside the fact that the policy is necessary to avoid endless edit warring) it achieves an objective that is valid in itself: the removal of a dogmatic and totalitarian attitude in the Wikipedia community as a whole. This version also solves the main problem with the original version, which was the naive and presumptuous view that the enemy of this objective are some specific, but unspecified, totalitarian and dogmatic organisations outside Wikipedia. Instead, it acknowkedges the obvious fact that the enemy is a tendency that may exist within us (because we are open to people from the whole world and all organisations). -Lumière 17:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the current wording is that it lambasts three particular objects: Totalitarianism, Dogmatic Institutions and Dogmatism. But Totalitarianism, in theory, is not opposed to the policy (in fact, the imposition of the policy is a form of "Totalitarianism"). Dogmatic Institutions, in theory, are not opposed to the policy (in fact, Wikipedia is a Dogamtic Institution, with its Dogmas being the three policies). And Dogmatism, in theory, is not opposed to the policy (in fact, many Wikipedians hold to the three policies with a sufficent level of moral/intellectual conviction to be considered Dogmatic). Lumière's proposal is better than the current wording, but still targets Dogmatism. Harald's is better because it leaves the readers to decide for themselves what is incompatible with the policy. Mine is best (imo) because it focuses solely on personal responsibility and intellectual freedom, and leaves the reader to decide everything else. But like I said, I'm not dogmatic (no pun intended) about what version we adopt. I am dogmatic that we stop targeting particular groups and levels of conviciton with this paragraph. --MonkeeSage 09:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The author of the original version must have assumed that dogmatism and totalitarism were by definition negative concepts. Certainly, this was my interpretation of the original version. However, I checked and realized that dogmatism is not at all a negative concept in a religious context. Similarly, totalitarism is not considered a negative concept by all scholars. Therefore, the problem was just the meaning that the author of the original version must have attributed to these terms. Now that I understand that these terms have a neutral definition in dictionaries, I agree with MonkeeSage that we should not attribute a negative connotation to "dogmatism" or "totalitarism". I replaced "dogmatism" with "bigotry and fanaticism", which are by definition negative concepts. When we consider that bigotry and fanaticism are bad things, we are not pushing any opinion because they are bad things by definition. -Lumière 12:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

About the author responsible for this language: it sounds like Jimbo, but the first time I saw it published (here), it came from the pen of LWS. At any rate, it's old... AvB ÷ talk 13:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I find "this tendency may also prevail within Wikipedia" much weaker than "reason to be opposed to Wikipedia". In fact it's a different thing altogether: the original implies a warning for "bad faith" edits, while the proposed replacement warns for wrong "good faith" edits. Harald88 14:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you prefer this more direct version:

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their own minds, allowing for intellectual independence. Governments, institutions and individuals everywhere try to influence or control information to promote their own viewpoint and related agenda. Because every one may become an editor of Wikipedia, these viewpoints are also pushed within Wikipedia. If we succeed as a community in adhering to this policy to present multiple viewpoints fairly without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, this will suggest that we, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts bigotry and fanaticism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

This version is more sharp. I also fee that each sentence follows naturally the previous sentence, more than in previous versions. However, the main point, for me, is that we do not adopt a naive view where the "evil" is localised in some specific but unspecified totalitarian and dogmatic governments and organisations outside Wikipedia. -Lumière 17:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

On the POV use of category tags

JA: I am relatively new here but I have recently noticed a phenomenon that I think deserves careful exanination by the WP community as a whole, with respect WP:NPOV and potential end-runs therearound. Suppoose that somebody creates a category called "Lame Opinions" (LO) and forthwith commences to make his or her way through WP tagging every article that he or she feels to fall under that category. I have noticed some examples that border on this absurdity already. What are the appropriate procedures for addressing these types of situations? Can one place "citation needed" tags on category tags? The mind toggles. Jon Awbrey 15:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No need to think the wikipedia community didn't already give some examination to the point you mention, here are some ideas to get you started:
In general (summarizing some of the "categorization of people" guideline here), "citation needed" tags don't work in combination with categorization; the idea is to write a strict category definition on the category page (trying to get rid of borderline cases), and check the articles included in that category against these criteria – OF COURSE the article should assert any questionable fact by external sources, if that is not the case the {{fact}} template can be applied in the article, and the (by this fact) questionable categorisation removed from the article. Further, the category should indicate a real and significant characteristic of the article where it shows at the bottom: you may find, for instance, either religion or atheism (or both) a "Lame Opinion". Nonetheless, people who were prominent adherents of a religion or of atheism or whatever, can be categorised accordingly. --Francis Schonken 16:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Thank you for the ample information. Jon Awbrey 17:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You can also read WP:LIVING ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Is a month of protection long enough? Let's unprotect the page; I don't think we can yet justify that this page is such a problem that that it merits permanent protection under protection policy. BigBlueFish 17:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Unprotected. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone even justify protecting the page in the first place? Bensaccount 00:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You were edit warring; unacceptable for any article, much less Wikipedia's cornerstone policy. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Really? Where? Why didn't you say so when you protected it? Bensaccount 02:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
See the history of the page. I'll back Katefan0 up on this; the edit warring was going on, now AFAIK, it's not. This is better. Please don't bring up old issues. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not an old issue. It is still going on right now. It has taken the form of a suppression of opinions. There is still a war between those who see that the current Wikipedia system works perfectly to express their view and want to keep it that way and others who see that the neutral point of view policy is not working. Any intelligent person can understand this mechanism. Suppression of opinions in such a context is a very bad idea. -Lumière 10:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the protection was undertaken simply for the pleasure of exercising control over other people. There was neither a real edit war nor a stated reason for protection. Where is the accountability? Bensaccount 16:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
If you think it was wrong, feel free to report it at WP:AN/I for review; otherwise, let's get on with building an encyclopedia. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Kairouan

I winder if other editors could have a look at Kairouan and give their opinion. The article described the city as holy, and I changed the summary to read that the city was regarded as holy by Muslims. Another editor reverted me, insisting that to call the city holy isn't POV. I don't really see how it isn't, but perhaps I'm wrong. I'd be grateful for comments. --Phronima 17:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many places of religious significance like Kairouan dotted around the world. It is in the nature of worship to invest places, objects, or individuals with the quality of "holiness" and, if such beliefs are sincerely held, I believe they should be respected. For example, Vatican City is the sovereign territory of the "Holy See", Harmandir Sahib in Amritsar is the most sacred gurdwara in all of Sikhism, etc. To state that a place or fetish is holy or sacred, is neutrally to recognise that belief. To place any form of caveat or commentary on the statement of belief is necessarily to imply that others who either have a different set of beliefs or no beliefs would consider the attribution of holiness to be unjustified. Because it is self-evident that only those within that belief system are likely to hold that belief, actually stating the obvious could be interpreted as an attack upon that first belief system's values. David91 17:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This could be a problem. For example, look at the debate about "AD/BC" vs "CE/BCE". Of course, neither system means you do (or don't) believe that "Jesus is Christ," but people on both sides perceive it that way. I say don't call anything "holy" unless you attribute it, because it is not an undisputed "fact," is is an "opinion" held by a specific group and should not be asserted except in the context of the group making the claim. --MonkeeSage 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ps. However, the qualification/attribution should be done respectfully, of course! --MonkeeSage 21:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Surely a statement that a particular group believe that "X" is holy simply states the fact of what they believe. "Manchester United fans worship their team". But "real fans treat their sport as a religion" may imply that they are extreme as against fair-weather fans or those who have no interest in their sport. David91 02:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The vilifying of POV

I believe that the policy about NPOV does not vilify POV: it only stresses that no POV take control of an article to the exclusion of any others. Some editors level accusations of POV when it should be remembered that POV is not bad. It is only NonNeutralPointOfView (NNPOV) that is bad. I think that there should be something written into this policy statement that disclaims any reprehensibility of POV. POV is not bad as long as it is balanced with all others, and that is my POV. drboisclair 18:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think lots of others feel this way. Really, a more accurate descriptor is the word biased. I try to use that word myself rather than "POV." · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Vilify is an interesting choice of word when making the point that no one POV should ever be considered better than any other POV. If we assume good will on the part of all editors, then all should be prepared to compromise on the admission of alternative POVs even though each of those POVs may provide a detailed critique of each of the other relevant POVs. After all, if we do not agree, we should both have the right to say why we disagree and to give detailed reasons (properly verified, of course). A neutral arbiter (the reader of this page) may then take a view on who has the better of the debate. The inclusion of multiple and balanced POVs empowers the reader. So, I think we are in complete agreement except that I think that is what the policy page actually says. David91 18:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I used the word "vilify" to denote what some other editors do by saying another is POV or that that other's contributions are POV. Everyone's contributions are POV in a sense. POV in itself is not bad while some bandy it about as bad. I support the policy of NPOV, but I think that there should be some kind of statement in the policy that says: "The policy of WP is NPOV, but this should not be understood to imply that any POV is bad or undesirable in and of itself. NPOV insures that all POVs are represented as far as possible." Perhaps by just posting this here gets the point across. BTW, even if anyone says that POV is bad that in itself is a POV! Cordially, drboisclair 15:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Our policy is to report all notable POVs while taking care not to adopt any of them. I wouldn't use the word "vilify" – what I'd say is that some Wikipedians ignore the first part of the policy. It's OK for a Wikipedia article to, for example, quote an opinion expressed by a prominent columnist, naming the columnist and providing a citation for the source of the quotation, yet some people seem to think that's an impermissible POV and should be removed. JamesMLane t c 16:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, you mean an impermissible bias. On second thought, a POV that would demand the exclusion of any other or certain other POVs would be an impermissible POV. Under the policy of NPOV all POVs can be represented. What is impermissible is non-NeutralPointOfView, and NPOV does not mean NoPointOfView. This statement could be made a part of the policy:
"The Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) policy by its nature does not make any value judgments concerning any point of view (POV) nor is any POV undesirable or impermissible as long as it does not render an article or entry as presenting a non-neutral point of view (NNPOV). A violation of this policy is not POV but NNPOV." drboisclair 20:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

An article shouldn't be a debate, leaving the reader to arbitrate; it should be an encyclopædia article. Debate is for the Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my entry in this section since we seem to be at cross purposes: I mostly write technical material on the humanities. Many of theories and issues are hotly debated but always for cause. Thus, the editors who work on these pages always set out all the relevant theories and cite authorities for each POV. For example, governments may seek to rely on selective empirical evidence for their policies on [insert subject matter]. Opponents therefore cite the alternative empirical evidence and propose amendments to the policies or different policies. A law case may have profound effects on how citizens relate to each other but cited academics believe the case wrongly decided because. . . . The only place for these debates is on the article page if the editor wishes to apply NPOV standards because simply citing the policy or law case without qualification would be partisan and grossly misleading. Further, since there is rarely a "right" answer, the reader is always left with having to make an informed decision. I have no idea what you guys are talking about because you have chosen not to give examples but, whatever it is, it seems to be unverifiable and, as such, an uniformed reader such as I might think it should be restricted to the talk pages as unverifiable debate on opinion. David91 03:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
What I am talking about is the use of the term "PointOfView" as an accusation and as something that is bad when what is bad is a nonNeutralPointOfView. The way some interpret the WP:NPOV is that a POV is something bad and undesirable. Editors should not be considered to be villains if they have a POV. They might be considered wrong if they are NNPOV.drboisclair 06:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What I (and many other editors, I believe) object to are attempts to impose a particular POV on an article. I think that is what is being 'vilified'. – Donald Albury(Talk) 20:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Political Bias

I was reverted for adding "policy" between party and candidate. I think it's rather obvious that being in favor of a political policy or advocating a political policy is a NPOV violation. But I was reverted by an anon IP.
Orig: Political bias, including bias in favor of or against a particular political party or candidate.
New: Political bias, including bias in favor of or against a particular political party, policy or candidate.

Comments? --Tbeatty 08:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the addition may be seen by some as superfluous, but it's obviously withing the spirit of the NPOV policy in general and the statement "Political bias, including..." in specific. A reversion is uncalled for I think, particularly with an edit summary that levels an accusation of "rewriting NPOV policy