Community point of view: Difference between revisions
linking individual bias
No edit summary |
(linking individual bias) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''[[community]] point of view''' is the implicit [[systemic bias]] that is shared by all who consider themselves to be part of a "community" of editors or contributors on a [[large public wiki]]. | The '''[[community]] point of view''' is the implicit [[systemic bias]] that is shared by all who consider themselves to be part of a "community" of editors or contributors on a [[large public wiki]]. Some view this as just [[editorial bias]] of the normal sort, as [[Disinfopedia]] seems to have. Others view it as a symptom of an ideology called "[[virtual community]]", which seems to be a way for insiders to excuse methods to limit debate with outsiders they despise (which is necessary in a real community where physical contact is involved, but is not really an aspect of wiki communication). | ||
To date none of these wikis has put measures in place to deal with this bias other than informal methods which have proven clearly inadequate. Starting by acknowledging that there *is* such a POV, and that it must be neutralized or limited like any other POV, is critical. ''See also [[individual bias]].'' | |||
As an example of the systemic denial, there is no discussion whatever of this on [[m:community point of view|Meta-Wikipedia]], despite several attempts to start one. It seems the [[Wikipedia Liars Club]] is quite determined to pretend that they have "no POV" and are "inherently neutral" or something. This seems to be the [[basis for unity]] on which they have built their own [[social capital]]. | |||
See also [[sysop vandalism]] | This is of course also plain bullshit in light of their claims to be "open", and, detrimental in the extreme to that project. Similarly attempts to declare that [[m:Wikipedia is not a social club]] have been attacked, deleted without process, etc., by those who use it primarily for social means. This is detrimental to its mission as an encyclopedia of course. ''[[Wikinfo]] is a better encyclopedia project that is aware of this problem and tries to overcome it, but not by compensation and [[faction]] mechanics, more by just separating the [[multiple point of view]] involved.'' | ||
See also [[sysop vandalism]], [[sysop vigilantiism]] | |||
The Consumerium approach should be to start by treating the current set of contributors as at least one [[faction]], and, permitting other factions to be started as differences of view become too extreme to accomodate without some system of [[factionally defined]] or approved edits. In other words, something controversial should not stand without at least one faction "behind it", and it should be this factional backing, not the contributor's "reputation" or any [[conflicts between users]] that determine whether the edit stands or not. | The Consumerium approach should be to start by treating the current set of contributors as at least one [[faction]], and, permitting other factions to be started as differences of view become too extreme to accomodate without some system of [[factionally defined]] or approved edits. In other words, something controversial should not stand without at least one faction "behind it", and it should be this factional backing, not the contributor's "reputation" or any [[conflicts between users]] that determine whether the edit stands or not. | ||