Here on Wikipedia, we have a somewhat (though not entirely) unique way of defining neutrality that serves our purpose as an encyclopedia well. We define neutrality as the position taken by the great preponderance of reliable sources on any issue of discussion. So long as we accept that the most reliable sources are accurate, we then arrive at the conclusion that the most neutral point of view is the point of view of reality. This is a position which is occasionally referred to as "Academic neutrality", because it is from academia that we get this definition.
I think missing in this is the idea of what our long-term coverage should be, rather than the short term, eg what's in WP:RECENTISM. The application of academic notability to well-established topics like the moon landing is a good example of where the above is the correct view. But in the midst of any current on-going controversy (in addition to the new existence of 24/7 news coverage, citizen blogs, etc., which didn't exist back then), trying to determine academic notability as the event is unfolding is a pointless exercise. If we have to cover a controversy that is still developing, we should treat it as far removed as possible and at high a level as possible, which is to report only the facts, and try not to get too much into the analysis and opinions unless that itself is part of the controversy. That is "document the controversy" but not attempt to assess the controversy (who's right or wrong) unless it has died out. This unfortunately is very difficult to separate from writing about the events for many editors that spend time on current event articles, but we need to have a better sense that we're aiming for how articles should be long after the event's concluded, not what they look like now. -- Masem ( t) 15:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The application of academic notability to well-established topics like the moon landing is a good example of where the above is the correct view. But in the midst of any current on-going controversy (in addition to the new existence of 24/7 news coverage, citizen blogs, etc., which didn't exist back then), trying to determine academic notability as the event is unfolding is a pointless exercise.I don't know that it's pointless, but it's certainly difficult as all hell, and extremely easy to fuck it up. See the next response below for my thoughts on this. I think one of the issues is that with some subjects, like politics, it's hard to argue that there even exists a category of sources that we can term "experts" to distinguish them from other reliable sources. An example of what I mean here would be contrasting a peer-reviewed meta-review of scientific literature (the expert source) with a well-written science reporting story in a major news publication (the "common" reliable source). I do think adding a bit about expert sources could be a big improvement.
That is "document the controversy" but not attempt to assess the controversy (who's right or wrong) unless it has died out.Hmmm. I want to disagree because "after it has died out" suggests to me that we should wait until there's no controversy left, which means withholding judgement on "live" controversies like the flat earth, creationism, ant-vaxxers, climate change, etc. But it occurs to me that you might mean something like "until the controversy among expert sources has died out," in which case we're pretty close to being in lockstep agreement. I do think this is something that should be added to the essay, as well, and perhaps something about minor controversies among experts (where a clear majority have one view, but a minority hold a "legitimate fringe" view, as it were).
This unfortunately is very difficult to separate from writing about the events for many editors that spend time on current event articles, but we need to have a better sense that we're aiming for how articles should be long after the event's concluded, not what they look like nowI agree completely. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to add them in or propose them here. I hope for this essay to be moved to wikispace one day, so don't take it's presence in my userspace as any sort of ownership. I would vastly prefer that this represent consensus, not just my own thoughts. Obviously right now, it's my thoughts on the consensus here, which is the best I can do by myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
easily the topic of Russia interference and possible collusion in the 2016 election is a poster child from trying to judge a situation far before expert sources not connected with the event have had their say.My first draft used that as an example, but it was too difficult to show how academic neutrality worked well there, lol. So a bit of open cherry-picking perhaps, though in truth all such examples are cherry-picked to a degree. But I've been toying with the idea of a "Disadvantages of academic neutrality" section with that as an example. I think that if both of us are thinking of that situation, that's a sign that it'd make for a great example, since we're often at odds over the details in discussions around this subject.
I do appreciate that you've included something I've been trying to argue for a while:Well, it's pretty clearly true. Mind, I agree with most of the reliably sourced criticisms of Trump, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing that there's a dearth of RSes defending him. And of course as a result of that agreement, I think there's a very good reason that there are few or no RSes defending Trump, but that, in turn doesn't prevent me from recognizing that it's still lopsided coverage, or from recognizing that it wouldn't be so lopsided had journalists stuck to their guns en masse.
but unfortunately too many cases of editors asserting "Reliable source = infallible source" leaves us in a bad place.Indeed. Our policy is such that it encourages that sort of thinking. In academia, academics are the ones using academic neutrality, whereas it's regular folks using it on WP. That works great when you're dealing with a body of highly educated people who have been trained to -and are paid to- think critically and independently, but when you apply that to a mass of folks with widely varying educations and abilities to engage in critical thought, it becomes a problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm here because I saw Masem refer to it at NPOV/N. If you want to make a "thing" of Academic Neutrality it would help to start with a short clear definition and some citations to references and other secondary definitions. From the text, I gather you have these sources or references, and citing them would take this beyond and above one editor's take on an otherwise defined policy. I don't see much use of this as a defined term itself in academia, but I am not questioning that you have a clear view of the term and what you mean by it. (unsolicited comment -- disregard at will.) SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I find that there are some editors who tend to be Trump-defender POV oriented at various articles who fail to stand back and ask "will anyone care about this bit X in a month, a year or 5 years."Oh, the irony. It's like molasses. You could cut it with a knife. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Here on Wikipedia, we have a somewhat (though not entirely) unique way of defining neutrality that serves our purpose as an encyclopedia well. We define neutrality as the position taken by the great preponderance of reliable sources on any issue of discussion. So long as we accept that the most reliable sources are accurate, we then arrive at the conclusion that the most neutral point of view is the point of view of reality. This is a position which is occasionally referred to as "Academic neutrality", because it is from academia that we get this definition.
I think missing in this is the idea of what our long-term coverage should be, rather than the short term, eg what's in WP:RECENTISM. The application of academic notability to well-established topics like the moon landing is a good example of where the above is the correct view. But in the midst of any current on-going controversy (in addition to the new existence of 24/7 news coverage, citizen blogs, etc., which didn't exist back then), trying to determine academic notability as the event is unfolding is a pointless exercise. If we have to cover a controversy that is still developing, we should treat it as far removed as possible and at high a level as possible, which is to report only the facts, and try not to get too much into the analysis and opinions unless that itself is part of the controversy. That is "document the controversy" but not attempt to assess the controversy (who's right or wrong) unless it has died out. This unfortunately is very difficult to separate from writing about the events for many editors that spend time on current event articles, but we need to have a better sense that we're aiming for how articles should be long after the event's concluded, not what they look like now. -- Masem ( t) 15:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The application of academic notability to well-established topics like the moon landing is a good example of where the above is the correct view. But in the midst of any current on-going controversy (in addition to the new existence of 24/7 news coverage, citizen blogs, etc., which didn't exist back then), trying to determine academic notability as the event is unfolding is a pointless exercise.I don't know that it's pointless, but it's certainly difficult as all hell, and extremely easy to fuck it up. See the next response below for my thoughts on this. I think one of the issues is that with some subjects, like politics, it's hard to argue that there even exists a category of sources that we can term "experts" to distinguish them from other reliable sources. An example of what I mean here would be contrasting a peer-reviewed meta-review of scientific literature (the expert source) with a well-written science reporting story in a major news publication (the "common" reliable source). I do think adding a bit about expert sources could be a big improvement.
That is "document the controversy" but not attempt to assess the controversy (who's right or wrong) unless it has died out.Hmmm. I want to disagree because "after it has died out" suggests to me that we should wait until there's no controversy left, which means withholding judgement on "live" controversies like the flat earth, creationism, ant-vaxxers, climate change, etc. But it occurs to me that you might mean something like "until the controversy among expert sources has died out," in which case we're pretty close to being in lockstep agreement. I do think this is something that should be added to the essay, as well, and perhaps something about minor controversies among experts (where a clear majority have one view, but a minority hold a "legitimate fringe" view, as it were).
This unfortunately is very difficult to separate from writing about the events for many editors that spend time on current event articles, but we need to have a better sense that we're aiming for how articles should be long after the event's concluded, not what they look like nowI agree completely. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to add them in or propose them here. I hope for this essay to be moved to wikispace one day, so don't take it's presence in my userspace as any sort of ownership. I would vastly prefer that this represent consensus, not just my own thoughts. Obviously right now, it's my thoughts on the consensus here, which is the best I can do by myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
easily the topic of Russia interference and possible collusion in the 2016 election is a poster child from trying to judge a situation far before expert sources not connected with the event have had their say.My first draft used that as an example, but it was too difficult to show how academic neutrality worked well there, lol. So a bit of open cherry-picking perhaps, though in truth all such examples are cherry-picked to a degree. But I've been toying with the idea of a "Disadvantages of academic neutrality" section with that as an example. I think that if both of us are thinking of that situation, that's a sign that it'd make for a great example, since we're often at odds over the details in discussions around this subject.
I do appreciate that you've included something I've been trying to argue for a while:Well, it's pretty clearly true. Mind, I agree with most of the reliably sourced criticisms of Trump, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing that there's a dearth of RSes defending him. And of course as a result of that agreement, I think there's a very good reason that there are few or no RSes defending Trump, but that, in turn doesn't prevent me from recognizing that it's still lopsided coverage, or from recognizing that it wouldn't be so lopsided had journalists stuck to their guns en masse.
but unfortunately too many cases of editors asserting "Reliable source = infallible source" leaves us in a bad place.Indeed. Our policy is such that it encourages that sort of thinking. In academia, academics are the ones using academic neutrality, whereas it's regular folks using it on WP. That works great when you're dealing with a body of highly educated people who have been trained to -and are paid to- think critically and independently, but when you apply that to a mass of folks with widely varying educations and abilities to engage in critical thought, it becomes a problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm here because I saw Masem refer to it at NPOV/N. If you want to make a "thing" of Academic Neutrality it would help to start with a short clear definition and some citations to references and other secondary definitions. From the text, I gather you have these sources or references, and citing them would take this beyond and above one editor's take on an otherwise defined policy. I don't see much use of this as a defined term itself in academia, but I am not questioning that you have a clear view of the term and what you mean by it. (unsolicited comment -- disregard at will.) SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I find that there are some editors who tend to be Trump-defender POV oriented at various articles who fail to stand back and ask "will anyone care about this bit X in a month, a year or 5 years."Oh, the irony. It's like molasses. You could cut it with a knife. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)