User:ChessPlayer/example01
A Problem and A Story
[edit]The following is a hypothetical situation, completely fictional, part problem and part story, and intended only to clarify the meaning of NPOV and its application to Wikipedia articles. In addition, it is meant to be slightly entertaining and funny, and no offense of any kind is intended to anyone involved in any similar but real dispute. If you haven't already, I suggest you read the material on the NPOV policy at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/NPOV#The_basic_concept_of_neutrality either before or after reading this story, as it is central to the issues raised.
The Two Crazy Wikipedians.
[edit]Two crazy Wikipedians argue on everything, and agree on nothing. No matter the assertion, one or the other is saying it is not true. One says the earth is round, and the other will say the earth is flat, and vice versa.
One day, one of them wants to say in an article, "Most X believe Y." The other then doubts that most X do in fact believe Y, and asserts it is not true. How does this get resolved, and what gets written into the Wikipedia article? Here are two alternate methods on how it might get resolved. Which, if either, do you feel is in accordance with the NPOV policy?
Method One
[edit]All the other people editing the article discuss the issue. It turns out that everyone but the crazy dissenter agrees, that most X do believe Y. So what gets written in the article ends up as:
"Most X believe Y."
The Wikipedians are satisfied now that the article is stating a fact that nobody but a lunatic disputes. They tell the lone crazy dissenter, he is crazy, and the article will state the clear truth which he denies.
Method Two
[edit]The people editing the article tell the crazy editor who wants to write "Most X believe Y." that while they all agree with him that most X do believe Y, that it can't be put into the article, as it is a disputed fact, the one other crazy editor disputes it.
The crazy writer protests. "Nothing will ever be in the article then that I write, as doombas over there will always dispute it."
A wise old editor then councils him. "Wikipedia articles never assert disputed facts. But I do have a suggestion for you. There are things you can write, that your crazy foe will not be able to successfully dispute."
"Oh yeah, what?"
"You can write opinions, and they cannot be challenged, for the most part. I won't go into the exceptions right now, it is a different issue. But generally, you can write an opinion in the article."
"An opinion?? I thought we were not supposed to write opinions, just facts?"
"Well, that is true...except you are leaving out the important part...you aren't supposed to write YOUR opinions. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. But you not only can write other people's opinions... and it is about the only thing you CAN write that generally won't be challenged. The key point is to clearly and accurately cite your sources."
'Huh???'
"Here is what you can, and should, do. Do some research, and when you are ready, write, "Professor So and So has stated in his book, 'All about Y,' that most X believe Y."
"Oh...I get it...I can write about other people's opinions!"
"That's right. Not only can you, it is what Wikipedia is all about. You are butting your head against the brick wall of the non-negotiable law of Wikipedia called NPOV if you try to assert facts that are disputed...even if they are only disputed by your crazy nemesis, and no sane person. You might even get away with it...if you are in a group of people who haven't read and understood the NPOV policy. That's easy to do, as the policy is not a simple one, and not intuitive, in my opinion. I don't blame anybody for not knowing it."
"I'll read it! Great, thanks!"
Later, into the article gets placed,
"Professor So and So has stated on page 54 of his book "All about Y," that most X believe Y"
The Wikipedians all nod approvingly...except the other crazy guy.
"It doesn't say that in MY copy" and he displays his copy, with page 54 ripped out.
The Wikipedians then mug him.
So....which method do you approve of...method one...or method two, or neither? Which method, if either, is in accordance with the NPOV policy? Which, if any, is not? Please limit comments to the NPOV policy, and methods one or two...I would like to focus the discussion on the example here and the NPOV policy, and not have it wander into other areas, thanks. In particular, please do not change the facts of the story and then use your new story for discussion purposes, but instead refer to the story as given.
Discussion
[edit]Please post your comments here.
What cannot be disputed is that this story is in the article namespace, presumably because you've left out a colon. Things of this sort should not be in the body of the Wikipedia.
The reason other people's opinions can be included is that usually, in order to get published, someone has to have a publishing deal of some sort and this generally implies that a publishing house believes they're qualified to write on the subject. Or in the case of research papers, they've had funding which, again, implies that they're not just an argumentative loony. --bodnotbod 22:56, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Educate me, please. Where did I leave out a colon? It was my intent to create a subpage of my user page, and I thought I had done that. ChessPlayer 23:05, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
How's about "Most X believe Y, such as Professor So and So (page 54 of All about Y)." This makes the attribution a little more neater/neutral too - there could be others who believe Y as well. One may want to also put something about those who disbelieve Y also.
By the way, you had an underscore/space, instead of a colon, before, which is necessary for the subpage to generate properly. Dysprosia 23:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
I find you story quite insightful. If you would like a first hand experience/observation of some of the more interesting variations, I reccomend Heteronormativity, Talk:Nazism and socialism and Fascism. Heteronormativity brings up an intruiging circumstance wherein the wikipedia itself is the most authoratative source on the subject, and ALL (that I have yet found myself, anyways) other sources are highly suspect and largely unqualified sources (term papers mainly). Another riddle is the expert (*chuckle, scoff*) editor, who feels their opinion itself is a citation (*snort*). While I am open to this in a theoretical wherein their expertise is Verifiable, in actual practice we all seem to think we're a great source of info, thus bringing in original research. Anyways you seem to have a good grasp of Policy, and I want to thank you for your persuasive and inspiring story, illustrative of the need for following the latter path, and shunning the (albeit democratic) former method of determining article content. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:13, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
I've been watching various disputes like this for some time (some are to me trivial such as Polish v German City Names) but obviously not to others (whose views I can understand). My personal solution is that in certain cases we should allow alternate opinions/articles to be created and clearly label them. It isn't enough to reach a consensus, it's sometimes extremely important not to censor other people's opinions. Rjstott 03:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- I think there would be far fewer disputes if people read, understood, and adhered to the NPOV policy. The policy is against censoring views, and against rule by consensus. ChessPlayer 04:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- However, the NPOV policy implies trying to reach a balanced compromise and trying to fairly represent opposing points of view. Sometimes this is quite impossible within an article as the flavour of the whole article is a continual battleground. It is often also quite impossible to make a coherent argument under these conditions or to come to balance the views fairly. Rjstott 06:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- Labelling opinions is ugly, such as this "Advantages/Positive/Supporting arguments: - Disadvantages/Negative/Opposing arguments:" abstraction which can be seen in some articles. A more naturally reading paragraph can be made by merging the two together, and using some nice language to highlight opposing views amongst supporting. Dysprosia 04:11, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that often it is ugly. What the NPOV policy requires is citation of who is giving the opinion, else we have to assume it is the editors' opinion, and that's ok until somebody challenges it; then it has to be deleted or replaced by a neutral, factual statement like "Dr. X thinks all crawdads are Socialists on account of they are red in color." This statement is a fact, if Dr. X really thinks that, even if all crawdads are blue and Royalists. However, I think the statement "Most X believe Y, such as Professor So and So (page 54 of All about Y)." violates the NPOV policy even worse than just saying "Most X believe Y" It has the article making the claim itself, that Most X believe Y. Now, the article then offers support for this claim, by mentioning that Professor So and So agrees with it. So, this sentence is completely opposite of what NPOV instructs, in my opinion. Its telling us what to think, "Most X believe Y" , then trying to prove it to us, by offering support, citing the Professor. In this case, the slight change in wording turns a very NPOV compliant sentence into a very NPOV violating one. ChessPlayer 04:43, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- This is why I think sometimes that looking into what exactly constitutes NPOV gets a little philosophical. "Facts" as a basis for establishing neutrality is not such the best idea always, as how can we establish the veracity of a fact? How can we say that "Dr X. thinks" is fact, since this is Dr. X's (however established and esteemed) opinion? To say that "Most think X is Y" is not fact either, since we have nothing to back this up (and even if we did, would that be factual? "numbers can lie") To say "Most think X is Y, such as Dr X" isn't factual either, for the same reasons.
- A better example for a somewhat neutral statement might go along the lines of "Most think X is Y. There is a number of people however who hold Y to be false, with reasons Z and W, but others, such as Dr X in All about Y claim that Y is true", for reasons Ω and Σ.
- It's not easy to apply NPOV in such a formulaic way however. NPOV arises differently from different articles/situations. Dysprosia 04:52, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
- Well, but you can't say, "Most think X is Y", as that is the editor's opinion, not a fact. The only fact stated in the last example is "Dr X in All about Y claim that Y is true", for reasons Ω and Σ.', and its probably a NPOV violation as well, as its being used not to present a fact, but to build the truth of the editor's statement, "Most think X is Y"
- '"Dr X in All about Y claim that Y is true", for reasons Ω and Σ.' is not quite fact, because there may be reasons Θ and Δ that contradict it? Dysprosia 06:03, 10 May 2004 (UTC)