User:Dominic Mayers/A conservatism enriched by progressivism in Wikipedia

A strongly defended view on Wikipedia is that there is no need for reasoning about what is the most relevant information or whether such information is missing in an article. Instead one should simply follow what the "best" sources say. In this view, UNDUE, BALANCE (based on these best sources) and a neutral tone is considered sufficient. This view usually leads to a phase of great progress in the creation of articles, but only within fixed paradigms.

A more progressive view is that to be useful to readers, an article must provide all relevant information, describe debates, provide arguments, attribute opinions, etc. At the same time, the topic must remain specific to help readers find information quickly and allow Wikipedians to develop the topic in depth without creating an overly large article. This goes beyond an editorial process that uses only UNDUE, BALANCE and an unbiased tone: it requires actively seeking out all relevant information and presenting it.

The opposition between these two Wikipedian philosophies is a conservatism/progressivism type debate which generalizes the empiricism/rationalism debate observed for more than 400 years in the history of science.

Wikipedian conservatism with its rules UNDUE, BALANCE and impartial tone is used in the foreground, whereas progressivism, much like in the legend "E pur si muove", is normally hidden and used only to come to the rescue when needed. As long as conservatism allows simple collaboration, there is no point in opposing it, but when the majority finds itself in some crisis, progressivism inevitably comes to help.

The attribution of points of view is a progressive aspect, at least that is why it is often opposed. We do not attribute a “fact” the conservative will say, but what is a fact from a conservative point of view is no longer a fact from a progressive point of view. The essay considers the general case and does not particularly discuss attribution.

Conservatism/progressivism and the empiricism/rationalism debate

Every discipline or school of thoughts uses its own language and premises to communicate about its practical concerns. This creates boundaries between disciplines or schools. Human beings break these boundaries, because they have in common a same basic intelligence. Thomas Kuhn says this requires a paradigm shift. It does not come easily. This intelligence must transcend logical deduction. It requires intuition and creativity. It is innate reason in Descartes, a priori or transcendental knowledge in Kant. Popper says it is awaken through critical discussions. The need for this basic intelligence to understand the world is proclaimed in rationalism, but historically rejected in empiricism.

Empiricists such as Locke in the XVIIe century and Russell in the XXe century reject the metaphysical views of contemporary or previous philosophers. Locke rejects the metaphysical concept of reason presented as a source of knowledge by Descartes. Similarly, Russell strongly rejects the notion of a priori or transcendental knowledge proposed by Kant. Similarly, nowadays, when someone says that he is an empiricist, he means that he uses the scientific method to obtain laws that are generalizations of observations. The empiricist implies that metaphysical knowledge or religious views play no role in this approach.

On the other hand, rationalists have in common that they suggest that knowledge is not gained only through observations. Some inner source of creativity, truth or reason was needed to discover new scientific laws. More precisely, they define themselves as the opponent of the following empiricist view. In this view, the mind has a simple Lockean internal structure that is transformed by observations in accordance with fixed simple mechanical laws. If we were to equate these internal laws with reason and creativity, it would not be that empiricism anymore, but rationalism. Thus, this empiricist view says that the growth of knowledge is explained by simple fixed internal laws of the mind, which process observations. David Hume is well known to have explained problems that arise when we propose such laws. Moreover, no such laws have been found in the last hundred years. Yet, this view was actually proposed by some empiricists such as Locke as a way to oppose rationalism. In this way, one can say that rationalism won the debate, at the least against this definition of empiricism.

This rejected empiricist can be said to be metaphysical, because it makes suppositions about the mind. It is a metaphysical tool used by rationalists to suggest metaphysical conclusions. It is an oxymoron, because empiricists reject metaphysical knowledge. Moreover, the scientific method itself is still used, scientific laws are still generalizations of individual observations and metaphysical knowledge are still viewed as dubious. In this way, the empiricists have not lost the debate and are still well alive. In other words, rationalists have defined themselves as the opponents of some empiricist view and they have won the associated debate. In reality, empiricists are simply not interested in metaphysical knowledge and they do not go further than that. In this perspective, they have not lost any debate.

Yet, paradigm shifts in science reminded philosophers that this dogmatic and metaphysical empiricism fails. It is useful to consider and generalize this failing dogmatic empiricism, because even though it is not today empiricism, it presents a useful caricatural view of what existed in the history of science. This dogmatic empiricism can be generalized to any dogmatic adoption of a language and premises that are used to explore the world. Being not attached to empirical observations, this conservatism is more general. Progressivism in that generalized picture is the view that, on the contrary, there is a need to regularly use reason and adopt new languages and new premises to better understand the world. The belief that the current paradigm is the final word is typically wrong, but some dogmatic attitude is often needed to allow progress. There is a time for both.

The scientific revolution of the 17th century marked the end of Aristotelian scholasticism which was a form of conservatism. Different forms of skepticisms had already challenged the Aristotelian view, but, as noted by Edward Grant, Aristotelianism remained mainstream: "From the time the works of Aristotle entered western Europe in the late twelfth century until perhaps 1600, or 1650, Aristotelianism provided not only the mechanisms of explanation for natural phenomena, but served as a gigantic filter through which the world was viewed and pictured."

It is not that the scientific revolution period was in itself progressive. Progressivism is seen in the rejection of the current paradigm. A scientific theory by itself is not progressive. It is the view that the previous theory was not sufficient that is progressive. Once we adopt and stick dogmatically to the new theory, we are again conservative. Descartes's notion of reason was his tool to reject Aristotelian conservativism. Descartes describes reason has the influence of the divine in us. To the extent that it opposes a mechanical explanation of scientific discovery, it was progressive. In opposition to the notion of probable propositions in Aristotelian dialectic, Descartes associated the laws that he proposed with certainty, but he knew that they were not the final words.

However, the scientific revolution of the XVIIe century gave birth to a new form of conservativism. It was a time where we could use observations through telescopes, microscopes and even naked eyes to test new laws that could be expressed in the new mathematics of the time. The discovery of these laws required something similar to what Descartes calls "reason", but empiricists such as Locke believed that, on the contrary, the laws were discovered through a systematic process that was mostly guided by observations and nothing like Descartes' reason was needed. Newton claimed that his laws could be logically deduced from Kepler's laws. This dogmatism brought in the XVIIe or XVIIIe century its own myths and legends such as the "E pur si muove" legend. It was dogmatic, but yet a time of great progress for science. This dogmatic attitude allowed to focus on the current paradigm without questioning its basis.

It might be fair to mention here that Descartes' notion of reason was metaphysical and even associated with a proof of the existence of God.  It is as if as soon as we insist on having an explanation, we must choose between dogmatic conservatism or metaphysical, possibly religious, progressivism. Even just asking the question of how we progress while asserting that we don't have an answer is already a position with a progressive inclination. We must deny the importance of the question to avoid both dogmatism and progressivism. Even still, one could classify a systematic rejection of the question as a form of dogmatism. The conservative blames the progressive for going on the side of metaphysics while the progressive blames the conservative for going on the side of dogmatism and authoritarianism.

A feature of conservatism is a rejection of the creative process that could challenge its fixed language and premises. The conservative says that new knowledge must be found in some external sources, not in internal creativity called reason or otherwise. The conservative usually have some criterion for the best sources. This was clearly seen in the Aristotelian conservatism, which insisted that classical Aristotelian texts and commentaries must be used in University teachings. It was seen in a different manner in the conservativism of the empiricists who insisted that knowledge comes from observations, using some internal process, of course, but a simple one that we can explain, that is, without the need for some unexplained internal mechanism.

Another feature of conservatism is that it always reach a crisis either because it internally fails to establish its basis or because it is challenged by some successful new paradigm (or both) and this crisis leads to the recurrence of a progressivist perspective. The Aristotelian conservatism was challenged by the upcoming scientific revolution and led to Descartes' rationalism. The conservatism of the empiricists was challenged by David Hume who is well known to have presented the problem of induction in the "Crisis of the Enlightenment" and this led to Kant's rationalism. Approximatively one hundred years later, a similar crisis with logical empiricism led to Popper's critical rationalism.

The neutral point of view inside Wikipedia

In the restricted Wikipedia setting, the understanding of the world through observations is replaced by our understanding of the world through sources: the world, for Wikipedians, is the one seen through sources. The arguments in the empiricism/rationalism debate are not all valid when observations are replaced by published sources, but one aspect seems to remain valid: there is no forced path or mechanical rules from one paradigm to another. In that restricted setting, a paradigm shift requires a deepening of our understanding of sources, and the conservative says that any deepening of our understanding must rely on sources only (some mechanical rules being implicit here), not on reasoning. The progressive disagree and argue that we must judge many factors such as pertinence that depends on our understanding of the subject.

From Descartes to Popper, progressivists always recognized the importance of empirical data. Descartes applied his method in optics, meteorology and geometry. Kant presented his philosophy as a synthesis of the old rationalism and empiricism. Experimental data is fundamental in Popper's refutability. Similarly, the progressivist in Wikipedia's setting says that verifiability in sources is necessary, but it also says that the need for reasoning cannot be escaped.

The thesis of the essay is that this progressive tendency should not oppose the conservative tendency. There is a time for progressiveness. It can come to the rescue some times, but it should not oppose the conservative tendency, which is strongly defended in Wikipedia.

Give due weight and not taking sides outside Wikipedia

The give due weight notion outside Wikipedia, say in court of law, goes well along the original progressive not taking sides notion in Wikipedia. It means Wikipedians must give the required attention to all pertinent view points in sources. As in the case of not taking sides, it is as much about including information as it is about excluding information. A lesson to be learned from this usual meaning of "give due weight" is that editors must read the sources carefully, giving them all the necessary attention in order to determine the proper place of each point of view.

Not taking sides has been a part of Wikipedia since its early times. The important point about the principle of not taking sides is that it applies when considering which content to present and not just the situation when potential content is presented. Presenting the facts, no matter how much space is attributed to these facts, does not mean we are taking sides, just like a judge that applies the laws is not taking sides. Conversely, not presenting some facts could mean that we are taking sides.

Rejecting information does not mean that we are taking sides

In 2003, because the "include-info" aspect of not taking sides or neutral point of view policy could be misinterpreted and misused to include theories supported only by an extremely small minority, perhaps even nonsense theories, such as the flat earth theory, the no original research (NOR) policy was added to complement it. In 2005, the section "Undue and due weight ...", which is based on the 2003 statement of the NOR policy, was added to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Just like a judge is not taking sides when he applies the laws, Wikipedia is not taking sides when it applies the NOR policy. However, the NOR policy is not saying that progressivism is not allowed. It only says that it must occur withing sources. There is plenty of room for progressivism and the use of reason within the NOR policy. Yet, this progressiveness should not oppose the conservative tendency, which relies on UNDUE, BALANCE, etc. It should only come to the rescue when conservatism is in crisis.

Including information as a way of not taking sides

Not all information is a theory to be rejected using NOR. In an article on Earth, one must give the information that "the Earth has the shape of an ellipsoid with a circumference of approximately 40,000 km." Not doing so would be to take sides or a refusal to accept one's responsibilities as a Wikipedian: not taking sides applies to a process and, if the process did not take place, it is because we refused our responsibilities as a Wikipedian. Including this information means accepting one's responsibilities as a Wikipedian while not taking sides.

The second meaning of due weight inside Wikipedia and its significance

Of course, english editors understand the usual meaning of "give due weight" and if they read "give due weight to all view points in sources", they understand that they must give proper attention to them, but in Wikipedia there is an automatic extension of the meaning: the editors also understand that the space given to the view points in the article must correspond to the importance of the view points in the sources. This second meaning, in a conservative perspective, eclipses the original meaning as regard to an active search for extra information in sources.

The dominance of the second meaning is highly significant. It makes a big difference, because the usual meaning refers to the attention given to view points in the editorial process, whereas the Wikipedia meaning refers to the final outcome in the article. In particular, in practice, in the text of the policy, "due weight" says nothing about the part of the editorial process that requires searching information.

Conservativism without dogmatism

A difficulty often mentioned is that anybody can edit Wikipedia and, thus, we do not have the competence required to do complex search in reliable sources. This is why it is often said that an editorial process must ideally be restricted to a few "best" secondary sources on the subject, which we then follow. This is viewed as a way to avoid biases, which is referred to as POV pushing, in polemic subjects. This view is rooted in a basic perspective on the role of sources vs the role of reasoning about them. The main thesis of the essay is that we should not oppose this conservative tendency. However, this thesis does not go as far as supporting a dogmatic support of that tendency.

Dogmatic forms of this rejection of reasoning

A request for a simple editorial process that minimizes the role of reasoning can take forms that are a bit dogmatic. Dogmatism is not supported by this essay. For example, for some reason, WP:SYNTH states "If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources". This is logically problematic. For example, the logical conclusion A $\wedge$ B can always be drawn and it will not usually be found in either of the two sources. More generally, conclusions that are included in the natural understanding of A and B in the two sources might not be found in either of the two sources separately. There is certainly nothing wrong that the same conclusions are included in the understanding of A and B in the article. It is rather the opposite that would be wrong. There is a very simple solution to this difficulty: simply replace "either of the sources" with "the sources". This new formulation says the essential. It says that the connections made by bringing together the contents in the article must respect the contexts of these contents in the sources. Unfortunately, there are oppositions to this solution, because it suggests a more complex editorial process in which we must understand the two sources together. For those who like logical and simple rules, this particular way of insisting for a simple editorial process is very annoying.

Another dogmatic form taken by this request for a simple editorial process is the suggestion that one can determine which viewpoints to include and how much space to allocate to them in the article by a simple method to analyse the sources, which would be more systematic and less biased than the usual reading and understanding of these sources. There are wikipedians that want to believe in such a magical method, because they are not comfortable with the natural complexity of the needed editorial process to find the relevant information to include. This is a generalisation of what has been said about dogmatic empiricism. If the goal is to evaluate the importance of a particular content in the article, there is no magical method, because judgment is needed to weight the reliability of the sources and other factors.

It is not always black and white. For example, in the french Wikipedia the following sentence was recently added in their citing sources guideline: "It is not recommended to introduce information or expressions from a point of view that cannot be easily controlled using sources." Clearly, there is an emphasis on simplicity in the process of using sources. Had it be said that the simple process can be mechanical, then it would have been dogmatic, just like as explained in the above paragraph.

The role of weight

The Wikipedia's concept of weight is not an issue as long as we accept that its evaluation requires and understanding of the sources as a part of complex editorial process. The challenge is to find an explanation of NPOV that unify the rational people who can possibly be unified: an explanation that considers, not only DUE, UNDUE, BALANCE, etc. on the final outcome, but also the different kinds of information that must be added in the editorial process when it is useful.

Examples

Most of the times, work in Wikipedia is done under a fixed paradigm with no need for reasoning. Even when a paradigm shift is seen in sources, wikipedians should often remain within a paradigm in respect of conservatism. Conservatives say that this is simply a respect of DUE WEIGHT. The progressive will be tempted to argue that it is cyclic reasoning, because the "best sources" to evaluate weight depend on our acceptation of the paradigm. Again, this kind of opposition to conservatism should be avoided, because it is a dead end. This is not saying that the conservative view is usually correct. On the contrary, it is often incorrect, but that is not an issue as long as conservatives can manage that situation using their own conservative view. Progressivism becomes useful when conservatism starts to have issues and Wikipedians see that in sources. In other words, conservatism does not always have an easy job and then progressivism can naturally come to the rescue. Progressivism is not a rejection of DUE WEIGHT, BALANCE, etc. It only adds the principle of searching the relevant information to describe debates, etc.

The basketball inventor

James Naismith is famously known as the inventor of basketball. All encyclopedia with an entry on him says that. Yet, this is not like a scientific law that has been tested again and again, and is thus strongly grounded on technologies and associated observations. It is an isolated fact, which somehow has become important. The main premise behind that fact is that the original documents and testimonies that verify it are trustworthy. If we don't trust them, the whole thing falls apart. In the case of a scientific law, anyone can repeat the tests, but not here. It is even more shaky than that, because there is no way to tell for sure that someone did not invent the same game before. Perhaps documents that show that someone else previously invented the game were destroyed. Another premise is that this did not happen. In accordance with these premises. the Wikipedia entry says that he is "the inventor of the game of basketball."

That story would not illustrate much, if it was not for the fact that sources are challenging the premises behind it. People in New York State, especially in Herkimer, have adopted a completely different paradigm: they rely on different sources with a different story. In that other paradigm, it is wrong that Naismith invented the game alone. For some, the inventor is not Naismith, but Lambert Will in Herkimer.

A progressivist is not strongly attach to the standard paradigm and considers that sources could be wrong and feels that we should not suggest in Wikipedia's voice that Naismith is the sole inventor of the game and that we should leave room for the view that he has done it with others. An extreme progressist, might say that he has not invented the game, but Lambert Will did.

However, the conservative has no problem to deal with that situation. He sees that all encyclopedia still maintain the standard paradigm and that Wikipedia should do the same in accordance with Wikipedia (non standard) meaning of due weight. In the current version of the James Naismith article, this conservative approach has been applied in the introductory summary. The progressivist should not oppose that.

At the same time, the progressive view should not be ignored. It was not. It resulted in change in one section of the article. It is also possible that more notorious and reliable sources will present the new paradigm and conservatism will get challenged. Then a progressive attitude becomes even more useful, but the key point is that it is not an opposition to conservatism, but a way to come to the rescue.