Consumerium:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions
(explaining role of NTPOV and CPOV in forming NPOV, how systemic bias makes NPOV insufficient) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
All articles in [[Research Wiki]] should be [[NPOV]], which is a descriptive meaning "any statement which is disputed | All articles in [[Research Wiki]] should be [[NPOV]], which is a descriptive meaning "any statement which is disputed requires [[attribution]]." Facts that are not disputed in practice need not be attributed - until they are. | ||
There may be a need to question some facts randomly or systematically from a [[New Troll point of view]] just to make sure that no sources are overtrusted and no [[common sense]] is accidentally being placed in articles. NPOV alone is not enough of a prescription, because of the [[systemic bias]] of editors and contributors. One form of [[vandalism]] is to harass contributors by disputing things that are actually not in dispute except for [[ad hominem]] reasons, then censor it when they give up "defending" it. Various forms of [[sysop vandalism]] in particular are often conducted in exactly this way. | |||
Statements of the form "X is often asserted to be true, but is not true" might be in the main article if they are very prevalent beliefs, but usually will be moved to another space devoted to [[Critical point of view]], e.g. [[talk page]]. | Statements of the form "X is often asserted to be true, but is not true" might be in the main article if they are very prevalent beliefs, but usually will be moved to another space devoted to [[Critical point of view]], e.g. [[talk page]]. | ||
The [[Publish Wiki]] may not contain all the attribution information, but, it will be available by [[drill down]] on the [[Consumerium buying signal]] that the consumer sees. Controversial or less trusted sources or disputed facts that appear in [[Research Wiki]] may not get to [[Publish Wiki]] - it should be up to some [[answer recommendation]] system. | |||
Revision as of 23:21, 25 June 2004
All articles in Research Wiki should be NPOV, which is a descriptive meaning "any statement which is disputed requires attribution." Facts that are not disputed in practice need not be attributed - until they are.
There may be a need to question some facts randomly or systematically from a New Troll point of view just to make sure that no sources are overtrusted and no common sense is accidentally being placed in articles. NPOV alone is not enough of a prescription, because of the systemic bias of editors and contributors. One form of vandalism is to harass contributors by disputing things that are actually not in dispute except for ad hominem reasons, then censor it when they give up "defending" it. Various forms of sysop vandalism in particular are often conducted in exactly this way.
Statements of the form "X is often asserted to be true, but is not true" might be in the main article if they are very prevalent beliefs, but usually will be moved to another space devoted to Critical point of view, e.g. talk page.
The Publish Wiki may not contain all the attribution information, but, it will be available by drill down on the Consumerium buying signal that the consumer sees. Controversial or less trusted sources or disputed facts that appear in Research Wiki may not get to Publish Wiki - it should be up to some answer recommendation system.