Neutrality dispute: Difference between revisions
"NPOV dispute" concept running out of steam, unable to resolve various issues that get WORSE with larger participation
(the Consumerium buying signal is not "neutral" - so Content Wiki is mostly factionally defined validation, even of political dispute, opinions can be neutralized but all remain visible) |
("NPOV dispute" concept running out of steam, unable to resolve various issues that get WORSE with larger participation) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
=== Content vs. opinion - where is neutrality possible? desirable? === | === Content vs. opinion - where is neutrality possible? desirable? === | ||
So it is safest to say that Wikipedia has had good short-run (three years) of success with its NPOV policy, and deals reasonably well with terminology and even identity disputes of the most obvious kind, resulting in decent factoring of articles and mostly-respected identity systems and claims of identity, but many incidents ultimately of a political nature that would sink Consumerium on the scale we expect them in our [[Content Wiki]]. | So it is safest to say that Wikipedia has had good short-run (three years) of success with its NPOV policy, and deals reasonably well with terminology and even identity disputes of the most obvious kind, resulting in decent factoring of articles and mostly-respected identity systems and claims of identity, but many incidents ultimately of a political nature that would sink Consumerium on the scale we expect them in our [[Content Wiki]]. ''And which are very likely to sink Wikipedia itself before it is five years old - it is already generating a goodly number of forks leading to a [[bad copy problem]] - one will replace it as the "leading arbiter of the [[GFDL text corpus]]". At that point [[w:]] will point somewhere else!'' | ||
Removing isolating disputed claims to [[Opinion Wiki]] circles is not enough, although in that Wiki, the "NPOV" approach may be enough. In Content, we must know roughly the balance and affiliation of types of advocates of a view, probably need several distinct POVs (ecology, human environment, labour, community impact, etc.) in the [[Consumerium buying signal]]. The actual end user is not interested in a balance of a lot of other people's views or values, it's their own they want reliably expressed in that signal, so the segmenting by [[faction]] and [[tendency]] seems to be the only way to make that decision. | So what does one do when neutrality is disputed in the content wiki? Removing isolating disputed claims to [[Opinion Wiki]] circles is not enough, although in that Wiki, the "NPOV" approach may be enough. In Content, we must know roughly the balance and affiliation of types of advocates of a view, probably need several distinct POVs (ecology, human environment, labour, community impact, etc.) in the [[Consumerium buying signal]]. The actual end user is not interested in a balance of a lot of other people's views or values, it's their own they want reliably expressed in that signal, so the segmenting by [[faction]] and [[tendency]] seems to be the only way to make that decision. | ||
It also means that there would be "no such thing as NPOV" in the content wiki - the neutrality disputes would arise only WITHIN factions where presumably they could be dealt with in a [[factionally defined]] way. | It also means that there would be "no such thing as NPOV" in the content wiki - the neutrality disputes would arise only WITHIN factions where presumably they could be dealt with in a [[factionally defined]] way. | ||