Neutrality dispute: Difference between revisions

Neutrality dispute (edit)

Revision as of 08:38, 7 January 2004

124 bytes added , 7 January 2004

clarifying

Anonymous user

142.177.99.185

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 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!''
-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.
+So what does one do when neutrality is disputed in the content wiki?  Removing isolating disputed claims to [[Opinion Wiki]] circles is not enough.
+For "mere Opinion", the "NPOV" approach may seem to be enough, but it isn't.  A much more rigorous view of the affected parties of any transaction or edit must be there - one must know roughly the balance and affiliation of types of advocates of a view.
+For "Content" we 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.