[Wikipedia-l] Re: Educating newcomers

Fri Nov 22 18:43:53 UTC 2002

The Cunctator wrote:

>I'd rather start with how "neutral point of view" is defined on Wikipedia
>proper: as presenting conflicting extremes. The lengthy article there
>repeated presents neutral or unbiased writing in terms of conflicting
>viewpoints. Framing knowledge in terms of conflict is not the best way to do
>it. It can be a helpful starting point, but a more complete synthesis is
>desired (and should be possible).
>
>And statements like this: "according to our understanding, when one writes
>neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or
>carefully but subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular
>view at all is correct" are just wrong.
>
>And the distinction between "facts" and "opinions", as written, is just not
>helpful. "Mars is a planet", where "planet" is a "massive object that orbits
>the Sun" has only been a "fact" for a few hundred years. "God exists" has
>been a "fact" for much longer than that.
>
>The whole page could be greatly improved and shortened by stating that the
>NPOV relies on evidentiary criteria. That is to say, all statements are
>assertions which rely on some form of evidence and definition, both of which
>should be explicated somewhere, preferably within Wikipedia itself (though
>primary sources should simply be referenced). 
>
I've just looked at the "NPOV" page, and it seems to me that NPOV needs 
to be applied recursively.  It makes statements that support reliance on 
experts without any guidelines about how we can determine when experts 
are a big part of the problem  Expert opinion is still just opinion. 
 The article includes the following "FAQ" type of discussion:

>
>       10.4 But wait. I find the optimism about science vs.
>       pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that
>       pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on
>       pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numercial
>       majorities of its followers to force their views on the anyone
>       they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who
>       literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that
>       the Holocaust never occured, the result is that it will
>       (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can
>       be termed evil.
>
> Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy 
> certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" 
> to completely repugnant views. It does state that we must not take a 
> stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from 
> representing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the 
> strong arguments against the repugnant views; from describing the 
> strong moral repugnance that many decent people feel toward them; and 
> so forth.
>
> Hence, on the one hand, Wikipedia does not officially take a stand 
> even on such obvious issues, but on the other, it will not look as 
> though we (the authors of Wikipedia) had accorded equal credibility to 
> morally repugnant views. Given that the authors of Wikipedia represent 
> a rough cross-section of the educated public, our readers can expect 
> us to have a similar cross-section of opinion about extremism: most of 
> us abhor it.
>
This seems to start with a controversy about science and ends up in 
moral repugnance over holocaust denial.  Is the implication here that 
pseudo-science is not just false but morally repugnant as well?  I find 
the term "pseudo-science" itself to fail NPOV.  The prefix "pseudo-" 
means false.  That puts any person defending a practice that has been 
put under that rubric in the untenable position of supporting a 
self-contradictory characterization.  When you get to that, the 
factuality of the practice is irrelevant.  The dogma of falsifiability 
in discussions about scientific method almost appears designed to 
maximize confusion.

Scientific method is asymptotic to truth, and I would also extend that 
assertion to NPOV.  That a particular view is held by a significant 
majority (either of the general public or of experts) does not magically 
convert that opinion into fact.  Scientific method very fairly allows 
for the possibility that eccentric views may ultimately be found valid; 
nevertheless, these allowances only represent distant hopes.  Poker 
players are not dealt royal flushes very frequently.

Eclecticology