User talk:Dominic Mayers/Give due weight to the different cultures

The plan of the essay

Abstractly, the problem situation is that every content is based on a viewpoint or context, unfortunately often hidden, not seen in the content itself. It is just something accepted on the basis of which the content unfold. That is not something I should claim at the start of the essay, because it will appear too abstract, but the problem associated with this fact should be described. It has to be introduced trough concrete examples and in a way that appeal to the good within wikipedians. Only after that, we can try to have an abstract view on the problem. But, I am not good at finding that kind of examples. It requires a lot of research and to know how to appeal to an as large audience of wikipedians as possible. So, I need to create a first draft that can motivate others to contribute and give examples. So, I need to make a plan without worrying too much about these concrete examples at first, just enough so that a few open wikipedians understand where I am going. Besides, the essay needs to be a collective work.

One idea already taken in the essay is to consider views from outside Wikipedia and relate them to Wikipedia. This does not invalidate the need for concrete examples in Wikipedia, mentioned in the previous paragraph, but it could solve a problem that I neglected to mention there: presenting concrete examples experienced in Wikipedia is problematic, because people already have their opinions on them.

In addition to the cases outside Wikipedia already discussed in the essay, I'm considering a way to present the rationalism/empiricism debate in a way that doesn't seem too abstract and philosophical, as a story that people can relate to, and relate it to the situation in Wikipedia. A connection with cases outside Wikipedia that takes position against a group in Wikipedia will be criticized, but I might have a way to avoid taking position and focus on principles that are universally appealing. Direct confrontation is not going to work. Dominic Mayers (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I need to take a case that was successfully solved after Wikipedians (or others if I take an example outside Wikipedia) have realized what is their own background context and how it differs from the background context used by others. There must be a generic name for this kind of progress. Or maybe I am wrong. It is very difficult to realize your own background context. The first thing is to obtain a deeper background context, but then dealing with the background context you had in the past might not be so useful. So, I just realized the obvious: the solution is to enlarge your background context. Obviously, if both sides do it, they have more chance to collaborate successfully. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Notes for myself

Analogy

An analogy between the two following oppositions seems possible:

• The creative aspect of the editorial process vs the more straightforward aspect of UNDUE, etc. in Wikipedia.
• The methodological aspect of science and its logical aspect as described in philosophy of science.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The analogy can be more general than that. It's the eternal debate between rationalism and empiricism. The idea that sources guide every thing with the help of a methodology based on proportion corresponds to empiricism. The idea that the editorial process is a creative one that requires discussions about the context corresponds to rationalism. The rationalism/empiricism debate is perhaps found within all other debates in the history of philosophy. Certainly, it comes back again and again in that history, not only in the enlightenment period with Descartes, Lock, etc. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Missing examples

The essay is missing concrete examples of the problems that it wants to solve. I think the challenge is that, if we take non polemic cases, the difficulty does not show up and, if we take polemic cases, then it is not possible to agree that anything is a solution. Perhaps, what is needed is more than an example, but a story, a story that shows a polemic and a way out of it, a story that appeals to our deepest convictions about impartiality and the goal of an encyclopedia, which is to inform. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The editorial process is also about rejection

The essay emphasizes the importance of the editorial process and the fact that it cannot be reduced to the simplistic notion of UNDUE, BALANCE, etc. However, at some point it almost identifies the editorial process to inclusion of information and the discussion switches to inclusion in opposition to rejection. That might be a mistake that limits the applicability of the essay: principles about the editorial process per se can require that some kind of information is rejected. In other words, the essay should not condemn rejection of information, but the simplistic view that considers only UNDUE, BALANCE, etc. on an already proposed article. We can still maintain that the editorial process is about research of information, because principles that limit the search space are useful in a search. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"Weight" is Wikipedia's jargon

I am not convinced that the notion of "weight" is so useful. I believe it is a wrong way of looking at the editorial process that Wikipedians must do. It only exists in the jargon of Wikipedia. It does not exist outside Wikipedia. It comes from "give due weight", but "give due weight" outside Wikipedia refers to the attention given to an argument, to facts, etc. It does not refer to the space attributed to the point of view or to anything like that. This is entirely an invention of Wikipedia. If we apply the usual meaning of "give due weight" to Wikipedia, it only means that we must give due attention to the view points in the sources. It does not say that the importance of the view points must be evaluated in terms of the space taken by them in the sources or using any other systematic method. It certainly does not say that the way to give due weight is to respect the same proportion in the article. This extension of the meaning exists only in Wikipedia's policy. Wikipedians don't even use that in practice. In practice, Wikipedians simply read the sources to understand how the different points of view are relevant. There is no systematic method to evaluate relevancy, except reading and understanding the sources. Moreover, most discussions among Wikipedians is whether a content should be included or not. There is no weight involved. Sure, we might mention "weight", because we refer to the policy, but most of the times, if not always, it is a yes/no question about a given content. If a concept of weight (different from its usual meaning outside Wikipedia in the expression "give due weight") would have been useful, it would already have been used outside Wikipedia. Besides, if we want Wikipedia to be a movement, as it claims to be, we should stop using our own jargon. The notion of "not taking sides", "give due weight", etc. are very well understood outside Wikipedia and these usual notions are good enough. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Attribution is only one way to obtain a more neutral point of view

Perhaps one way to explain what is a more neutral point of view is scientific knowledge. Science can be described as a search for a more universal point of view on the physical aspects of reality. A more neutral point of view is a point of view that leaves asides personal feelings and opinions. So, it is the same concept as a more universal point of view. Attribution is only one pattern that helps obtaining a more neutral point of view. It works because people that disagree on a point of view might still agree that it is the point of view of a given person. However, reducing the search for a more neutral point of view to attribution indicates a misunderstanding of the general notion not taking sides and of a more neutral point of view. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The wrong dilemma: absolute and relativised knowledge

Science offers neutral knowledge and this kind of neutral knowledge is fine in Wikipedia. But some knowledge have not reached that level of neutrality, but is yet notorious. We present them in a relativised manner. For example, instead of writing "P", we write "the offered arguments for P are ...". It is clear the dominant culture will want to present its favorite point of view as an absolute neutral knowledge. This is another reason besides complexity to reject the patterns toward a neutral point of view: they are often patterns of relativisation.

Actually, there is a big misunderstanding behind this negative attitude toward relativisation, because all good knowledge is strongly relativised. It's the other way around: the problem is a weak relativisation, for example, a relativisation to a single unimportant person. Consider the scientific knowledge "the Higgs particle is a massive scalar boson with zero spin, even (positive) parity, no electric charge, and no colour charge". The amount of context needed to even start to make sense of this is enormous. All knowledge, all truths, require a point of view. We tend to ignore the point of view when it can be shared. We tend to forget that a theory in science is the expression of a point of view. We say the theory is "true", but this is not a logical truth as when we already have a theory. Given a theory, some statements are true and others are false, but the theories themselves cannot all be truths within other theories, because this would create an infinite regress. Fundamentally, a theory is not true, but useful. It is a useful point of view that can be shared. A statement within a theory makes sense in the context of that point of view. This context needs to be provided, just as when we attribute an opinion. An opinion without the author is incomplete knowledge, just like a scientific statement without the proper context is incomplete.

So, the correct attitude is not that there is a relativisation, but that the relativisation is not the correct one and usually too weak. There is always a context to provide if the knowledge is to be valid neutral knowledge. Dominic Mayers (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Prescriptive vs descriptive aspects

NPOV says describe instead of engage debates, but there are contents in Wikipedia that ask that we provide more than only a complete accurate description. For example, how we name a person requires that we respect how Wikipedia decides we must name a person. It is an extension of the concept of pertinence to a subject. The pertinence is not relative the subject anymore, but to Wikipedia's policy about the name of a person. It's not in opposition to the neutral point of view requirement. One way to see this is that the subject is special and include Wikipedia's policy. Another way is that the neutral point of view asks that we follow rules that are not personal, but the rules might be more than provide the relevant content with its context. To sum up, it makes sense to view a subject as the specification of the content that is acceptable in the article and this might take the forms of rules about acceptable names, etc.

OK, I am not satisfied with the previous analysis. The notion of subject has to be less directed. Yes, there are editorial rules such as attribute opinions, but when it goes up to how we name people, I am not at ease with it. If I could link that requirement to the general requirement that we must provide a context, I would be more at ease with it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It might not be so complicated. It's just that a context gives a direction such as the way to name a person and many contexts are possible and we must pick the one that is adequate and there must be policies for that and these go beyond the principle that the context must be given. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Relying entirely on sources

The neutral point of view often requires that we add information early in the article to explain the context. This cannot be achieved simply by pointing to sources, because the wikipedian that engage within that context instead of describe it, will simply read and use the sources in terms of that context, not to describe it. For example, instead of placing it at the start of the article, it will add a paragraph in some section toward the end, which achieves the opposite goal. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The context underlying the sources

The most challenging aspect of the neutral point of view is the fact that it requires to extract the underlying context used by the sources. It is not hidden in the same way as the author of the content is not hidden, but it is not explicit either in the same way as there is no sentence that says explicitly "Joe wrote X" in the source even if the author is Joe and the source says X. In the same way, in general, the context used is not hidden, but at the same time it is not stated explicitly as the context. A good understanding of the sources might even be needed to extract that context. Certainly, I cannot go into this in this abstract manner in the essay.

A good way to explain the notion of context is as the premises, i.e., the background knowledge, that must be accepted before the content can be accepted as truth or as having some truth value. For example, when we attribute the content, we can better determine its truth value. This is the main or at the least a key purpose of the attribution. For example, if an author had two phases in his life in which he accepted completely different premises, then an attribution to the author without saying whether it is the late or the earlier version of the author, would not be so useful. It is also the reason why giving the arguments provide a necessary context: the premises used are implicit in the arguments.

The point being made is that it may seem abstract, but we are just talking common sense here. We are saying that we must provide the context so that the content can be fully understood, not just accepted blindly because it is written in Wikipedia. Oh well ! Still, we need something closer to what people can feel personally.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no opposition between emotions and not taking sides

The language is confusing, because taking sides is associated with following our feelings and thus we assume not taking sides require leaving our emotions aside. This is not true. Not taking sides corresponds to achieving balance and respect feelings in a way that is in accord with us and the rules. Dominic Mayers (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Use cases

I need to consider use cases. I am curious about use cases that resulted in a block:

• Marion Leconte. Here are her last edits in the main space. Here are some other edits. There is nothing special about these edits. I guess it is necessary to look at discussions in talk pages to understand her story in Wikipedia.
• User:Radlrb: some edits of the user. This was only a topic ban in the area of numbers. It is hard to relate the conflict to a difference in the underlying viewpoint about the area of numbers without going deep into the edits.
• Pluseline. It's clear from the personal page of the user that she has some basic assumptions about how we should describe others that could conflict with what a majority has established as a standard in Wikipedia.

I will continue to consider more cases, but just a few cases and I have the feeling that it will wrong to consider that at every block a majority of wikipedians abuses the power of a majority against a person that has a different view. That would be a very naive view. Therefore, for the essay to be useful, it should be directed toward improving the approach of each wikipedian individually as well as improving the approach of a majority. Again, the essay should not take side and be useful to all, as much to those who feel that they are opposed to a majority as to such a majority.

• Inspector Colombo This personal talk page suggests the user was concerned about the reputation of the family of Lillie Langtry. I am not sure how much sources he had to back his concern nor about the exact nature of the concern.
• Brion Carroll The issue was about who invented the basket ball game, James Naismith or Lambert Will. Naismith is clearly known as the inventor, but there are a few local sources in Herkimer, New York that say the inventor is Lambert Will. It's also clear from many New York sources that Lambert Will is named in the NY basketball Hame of Fame as a contributor to the invention of the game. This might be a case of a cultural clash, even though one side is very local and on this respect can be said to have low weight. Again, since the goal is not to say that the majority is always wrong (I believe it is most of the time correct), that might be a good use case.

When I say the majority is most of the time correct, I mean it is "correct" regarding the content of the article, not that it has the truth about the subject of the article. When it is a scientific subject (in natural science), the underlying view point is so well established that we usually say scientific knowledge is true. But, in the case of who invented basketball, I have no problem in saying it might not be true. Acknowledging, at the least among wikipedians, the existence of an underlying viewpoint brings humility and an open mind, because we know that the truth is relative to this underlying viewpoint. If the majority shows the example, then it is easier for an individual such as Brion Carroll to have the same attitude and understand that his truth is relative to the sources that he trust, just like those who believe that it is a fact that Naismith is the inventor also trust their sources. Otherwise, they cannot say it is a fact.

• ITZQing This user cares about local names. There was no decision really taken in the ANI. A wikipedian, not an admin I believe, made a comment about not going against consensus. The wikipedian in dispute with ITZQing wrote in the talk page that he is now restricted to ask for a consensus, which might have been the decision, but it is not clear. In any case, this is an example of a cultural clash. In the case of Kyiv (alias Kiev), I believe a consensus in favour of the new local name was reached. The detail of the debate could be interesting.

I need a more efficient approach to find interesting use cases. It's boring to read these disputes, most of them being irrelevant to the essay.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Presenting the Lambert Will case

I have a difficulty matching this case with a the empiricist/rationalist debate, because there is no need for reasoning to pass to the "new paradigm". It only requires to completely trust the new sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)