Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This has been copied from User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy.
(Adding comment at top) For more than one reason, I've decided to request that nobody except myself edit this user page. Everyone is welcome to post on this talk page. People are still very much welcome to submit material to go on the page -- just post it here on the talk page and I will try to develop an essay based on it. I hope soon to move the contents to policy space as was done with SlimVirgin's essay. -- Coppertwig 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
In brief: If you're against the merge, go ahead and edit!
Details: You may change the headings of the sections, but try to keep the number of sections and length of each section reasonably small; more detailed information can go in subpages in my or other user's userspace.
If you are in favour of the merge and in favour of
WP:ATT as the merged version, you may not edit this page. If you are against the merge or against some aspect of how it's being carried out, you may edit here, except that I reserve the right to impose additional restrictions including restricting or banning specific individuals. Individuals should respect the
WP:3RR rule, except that as the user whose user space this is in, I am not limited by that rule but can do any number of reverts. I intend to try to set aside personal biases and help develop this page into a balance, concise summary of the anti-merge positions including positions I don't personally agree with. Some of the things I write into the page may be my personal views, and some of the things I write into the page may be views I don't agree with but that I believe one or more other users agree with. Feel free to comment on these rules here or on my talk page. Users are also free to use this as a regular talk page to discuss the main page. --
Coppertwig 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
---
I see. Very nice. The move does have a certain elegance, symmetry, and grace. I can see it! -- Rednblu 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
At the top of this page, it says "This has been copied from User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy."
Then in the first section, it says "For more than one reason, I've decided to request that nobody except myself edit this user page."
I'm trying to figure out what these two statements mean together. Which of the following three is being said?
This is an important question. The How to participate in this poll section of the page Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll points to this essay, and so this essay helps all voters understand the issues. It seems unfair for Coppertwig to be the primary source of information about this poll. — Lawrence King ( talk) 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The argument about changing the meaning of links to the page comes from user Jimbo Wales. I wonder whether it would be better to mention the name and maybe give a quote (or at least a link to a quote). -- Coppertwig 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, eventually all the links directly from the page should be to organized versions of arguments, not to talk pages with many messages posted on them. For now, nothing wrong with collecting some links to talk page messages if they have interesting material we can refactor. -- Coppertwig 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Good work, much progress already! By the way, I've put a note on SlimVirgin's talk page asking the user not to edit any pages in my user space except my talk page. -- Coppertwig 01:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I created another collaborative page, same/similar rules, with a link from this main page to that page.
Read over your page, and I think diff #1 in this section doesn't quite mean what you imply it means. The non-problematic "status quo" in the diff is to leave WP:ATT as policy, and the "unnecessary change" is to remove ATT's policy status immediately. Gimmetrow 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
---
I cut the item to here. We may need it later in a different context.
I thought we needed a similar item in structure. So I picked one. It may work. This is beginning to shape up. -- Rednblu 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Need to check whether any significantly different points are there to be separated out, otherwise shorten it. -- Coppertwig 02:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Your "false" and my "true" may coincide. But of course you've had that pointed out to you enough times now, and simply ignore it. The conflict on WP:V is between those who believe that there is an "objective" truth and those who more realistically believe "truth" is negotiated among people. Wikipedia reflects the latter notion, at least in principle. If you don't like it, you really need to consider whether you should find a fork that believes in a truth you're more comfortable with. Grace Note 03:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Rednblu, that's a very interesting point. I think Wikipedia does quite well in that sense on scientific pages, particularly the technical ones. It presents the SPOV quite faithfully, mostly because those pages are written by practitioners. Few are going to find that exceptionable because, apart from blanket statements, few opposing viewpoints are available on specific subjects (what I mean is, many people do not believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but they have not taken a view on Diplodocus specifically, so they are not represented in that article). Even if one thought that was problematic, I cannot see any hope of winning the discussion over it. I think that articles of that type have in any case a kind of synthetic truth. They are written in the language of science about science. The language of science can be taken as axiomatic for those articles. If you allow the language of science to be axiomatic, you allow the articles as true so long as they follow from that language. If you do not allow it, you do not allow that the articles are true. I think we should state that explicitly though and not pretend otherwise.
Our pages on "pseudoscience" are presented in the same light though, which is problematic, and I know that you have written about that. The same is true of pages on religion, which is presented from a rather nonneutral position. In neither of these areas is it as clear that we are using a particular language or standard as an axiom. We seem to be writing from a much broader reference point.
The position of most of the policy writers here creates a de facto operational definition of truth, without stating that openly (which is something I take issue with in the discussion on reliable sources at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight). Ultimately, we take the position that what the MSM reports, what scientific papers state and academics write is, if not true, correct, and anything else is not. I don't think a truly NPOV encyclopaedia can take any stand on the truth, and our policies on NPOV and sourcing are poor in this regard if our aim is truly to be neutral rather than to reflect the status quo wisdom of the day. For me, this devalues Wikipedia, making it simply a poor man's Britannica. But most editors here seem quite happy to be poor man's encyclopaedians, and run scared from vision or challenge. Grace Note 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig, I am saying that we cannot address objective truth because no such thing exists. I think you have entirely missed my point, which is that you cannot legislate against including "false" information if there is no way to measure what is true and what is false.
Here is an example. The article on the battle of Englefield, Berkshire said (before I corrected it) that the Saxons were led by King Alfred. They were led by Aethelwulf, a local noble. But were they? There are sources that say so, and I can attribute my edit to them (if I have to; naturally, facts like this are rarely attributed in Wikipedia). But if someone were to reinsert that the forces were led by Alfred, what then?
Have they included "false" information? I cannot know. My sources say Aethelwulf but I don't know that. It might be me who has inserted false information.
I recognise in your reply that you are trying to suggest that the policy should emphasise that I need only be able to attribute my claim. Which I agree with. But you are claiming elsewhere that we should not be explicit that we do not make claims to truth. I think it is essential that we do not.
Think about my example. Think about what it means for it to be true that Aethelwulf led the Saxons. There must be an "objective reality" (we'll allow that for argument's sake). There must have been events in Englefield in 870. But who owns the truth about it? What if Aethelwulf wrote a memoir? Would that be "true"? How can you know? See my note to rednblu above: where our articles are based on subject-specific quasi-axiomatic languages, there is a possibility of referring to the "truth", so long as the "truth" is understood to be wholly dependent on the axioms in question. Otherwise, it is pointless to talk about it at all, except to warn as strongly as we can that we are not dealing in it here. Grace Note 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this: "The result of this so-called merger is completely incoherent." Perhaps it would be better to give specific examples of problem wording. I would like to delete this or at least move it so it isn't at the top, or perhaps have it say "some users find the result of the merger incoherent." What do others think? (pro-merge users can always comment on my regular talk page.) -- Coppertwig 14:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this part could be moved to "stuff that was left out". The last bit, "but totally ignore the WP:RS and WP:V requirement to verify that the assertion in the Wikipedia page has support "directly referenced for the point."" seems to merely repeat what was already said and can be deleted. I may do these and other changes later, or others (among those editing this page) can do them or comment here. -- Coppertwig 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving this here from the user page. I have trouble following what the point is. I think I can express the same or similar idea in a way that may be easier to understand. Comments and explanations are welcome.
-- Coppertwig 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"Best practice in scholarship requires the use of primary sources and multiple secondary sources to check the loss of accuracy that occurs over time in secondary sources. The new policy discourages the use of primary sources in a way that radically departs both from real world standards of sourced research and from longstanding Wikipedia policy. " (possible material for user page) -- Coppertwig 00:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.
---
Yes, now that you give me the hint, I can see that. And the other points seem to be stronger without this. Do we think this page is now ready for someone other than us to move to Wikipedia:Attribution/Stability of policy? Any ideas? -- Rednblu 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
I saw this:
"Therefore the possibility that a small group of super-editors can actually change the very language that Wikipedians use suggests that Wikipedia is more of an aristocracy than a democracy or anarchy."
But WP is NOT a democracy or anarchy! mike4ty4 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This has been copied from User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy.
(Adding comment at top) For more than one reason, I've decided to request that nobody except myself edit this user page. Everyone is welcome to post on this talk page. People are still very much welcome to submit material to go on the page -- just post it here on the talk page and I will try to develop an essay based on it. I hope soon to move the contents to policy space as was done with SlimVirgin's essay. -- Coppertwig 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
In brief: If you're against the merge, go ahead and edit!
Details: You may change the headings of the sections, but try to keep the number of sections and length of each section reasonably small; more detailed information can go in subpages in my or other user's userspace.
If you are in favour of the merge and in favour of
WP:ATT as the merged version, you may not edit this page. If you are against the merge or against some aspect of how it's being carried out, you may edit here, except that I reserve the right to impose additional restrictions including restricting or banning specific individuals. Individuals should respect the
WP:3RR rule, except that as the user whose user space this is in, I am not limited by that rule but can do any number of reverts. I intend to try to set aside personal biases and help develop this page into a balance, concise summary of the anti-merge positions including positions I don't personally agree with. Some of the things I write into the page may be my personal views, and some of the things I write into the page may be views I don't agree with but that I believe one or more other users agree with. Feel free to comment on these rules here or on my talk page. Users are also free to use this as a regular talk page to discuss the main page. --
Coppertwig 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
---
I see. Very nice. The move does have a certain elegance, symmetry, and grace. I can see it! -- Rednblu 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
At the top of this page, it says "This has been copied from User:Coppertwig/Stability of policy."
Then in the first section, it says "For more than one reason, I've decided to request that nobody except myself edit this user page."
I'm trying to figure out what these two statements mean together. Which of the following three is being said?
This is an important question. The How to participate in this poll section of the page Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll points to this essay, and so this essay helps all voters understand the issues. It seems unfair for Coppertwig to be the primary source of information about this poll. — Lawrence King ( talk) 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The argument about changing the meaning of links to the page comes from user Jimbo Wales. I wonder whether it would be better to mention the name and maybe give a quote (or at least a link to a quote). -- Coppertwig 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, eventually all the links directly from the page should be to organized versions of arguments, not to talk pages with many messages posted on them. For now, nothing wrong with collecting some links to talk page messages if they have interesting material we can refactor. -- Coppertwig 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Good work, much progress already! By the way, I've put a note on SlimVirgin's talk page asking the user not to edit any pages in my user space except my talk page. -- Coppertwig 01:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I created another collaborative page, same/similar rules, with a link from this main page to that page.
Read over your page, and I think diff #1 in this section doesn't quite mean what you imply it means. The non-problematic "status quo" in the diff is to leave WP:ATT as policy, and the "unnecessary change" is to remove ATT's policy status immediately. Gimmetrow 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
---
I cut the item to here. We may need it later in a different context.
I thought we needed a similar item in structure. So I picked one. It may work. This is beginning to shape up. -- Rednblu 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Need to check whether any significantly different points are there to be separated out, otherwise shorten it. -- Coppertwig 02:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Your "false" and my "true" may coincide. But of course you've had that pointed out to you enough times now, and simply ignore it. The conflict on WP:V is between those who believe that there is an "objective" truth and those who more realistically believe "truth" is negotiated among people. Wikipedia reflects the latter notion, at least in principle. If you don't like it, you really need to consider whether you should find a fork that believes in a truth you're more comfortable with. Grace Note 03:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Rednblu, that's a very interesting point. I think Wikipedia does quite well in that sense on scientific pages, particularly the technical ones. It presents the SPOV quite faithfully, mostly because those pages are written by practitioners. Few are going to find that exceptionable because, apart from blanket statements, few opposing viewpoints are available on specific subjects (what I mean is, many people do not believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but they have not taken a view on Diplodocus specifically, so they are not represented in that article). Even if one thought that was problematic, I cannot see any hope of winning the discussion over it. I think that articles of that type have in any case a kind of synthetic truth. They are written in the language of science about science. The language of science can be taken as axiomatic for those articles. If you allow the language of science to be axiomatic, you allow the articles as true so long as they follow from that language. If you do not allow it, you do not allow that the articles are true. I think we should state that explicitly though and not pretend otherwise.
Our pages on "pseudoscience" are presented in the same light though, which is problematic, and I know that you have written about that. The same is true of pages on religion, which is presented from a rather nonneutral position. In neither of these areas is it as clear that we are using a particular language or standard as an axiom. We seem to be writing from a much broader reference point.
The position of most of the policy writers here creates a de facto operational definition of truth, without stating that openly (which is something I take issue with in the discussion on reliable sources at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight). Ultimately, we take the position that what the MSM reports, what scientific papers state and academics write is, if not true, correct, and anything else is not. I don't think a truly NPOV encyclopaedia can take any stand on the truth, and our policies on NPOV and sourcing are poor in this regard if our aim is truly to be neutral rather than to reflect the status quo wisdom of the day. For me, this devalues Wikipedia, making it simply a poor man's Britannica. But most editors here seem quite happy to be poor man's encyclopaedians, and run scared from vision or challenge. Grace Note 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig, I am saying that we cannot address objective truth because no such thing exists. I think you have entirely missed my point, which is that you cannot legislate against including "false" information if there is no way to measure what is true and what is false.
Here is an example. The article on the battle of Englefield, Berkshire said (before I corrected it) that the Saxons were led by King Alfred. They were led by Aethelwulf, a local noble. But were they? There are sources that say so, and I can attribute my edit to them (if I have to; naturally, facts like this are rarely attributed in Wikipedia). But if someone were to reinsert that the forces were led by Alfred, what then?
Have they included "false" information? I cannot know. My sources say Aethelwulf but I don't know that. It might be me who has inserted false information.
I recognise in your reply that you are trying to suggest that the policy should emphasise that I need only be able to attribute my claim. Which I agree with. But you are claiming elsewhere that we should not be explicit that we do not make claims to truth. I think it is essential that we do not.
Think about my example. Think about what it means for it to be true that Aethelwulf led the Saxons. There must be an "objective reality" (we'll allow that for argument's sake). There must have been events in Englefield in 870. But who owns the truth about it? What if Aethelwulf wrote a memoir? Would that be "true"? How can you know? See my note to rednblu above: where our articles are based on subject-specific quasi-axiomatic languages, there is a possibility of referring to the "truth", so long as the "truth" is understood to be wholly dependent on the axioms in question. Otherwise, it is pointless to talk about it at all, except to warn as strongly as we can that we are not dealing in it here. Grace Note 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this: "The result of this so-called merger is completely incoherent." Perhaps it would be better to give specific examples of problem wording. I would like to delete this or at least move it so it isn't at the top, or perhaps have it say "some users find the result of the merger incoherent." What do others think? (pro-merge users can always comment on my regular talk page.) -- Coppertwig 14:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this part could be moved to "stuff that was left out". The last bit, "but totally ignore the WP:RS and WP:V requirement to verify that the assertion in the Wikipedia page has support "directly referenced for the point."" seems to merely repeat what was already said and can be deleted. I may do these and other changes later, or others (among those editing this page) can do them or comment here. -- Coppertwig 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving this here from the user page. I have trouble following what the point is. I think I can express the same or similar idea in a way that may be easier to understand. Comments and explanations are welcome.
-- Coppertwig 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"Best practice in scholarship requires the use of primary sources and multiple secondary sources to check the loss of accuracy that occurs over time in secondary sources. The new policy discourages the use of primary sources in a way that radically departs both from real world standards of sourced research and from longstanding Wikipedia policy. " (possible material for user page) -- Coppertwig 00:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.
---
Yes, now that you give me the hint, I can see that. And the other points seem to be stronger without this. Do we think this page is now ready for someone other than us to move to Wikipedia:Attribution/Stability of policy? Any ideas? -- Rednblu 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
I saw this:
"Therefore the possibility that a small group of super-editors can actually change the very language that Wikipedians use suggests that Wikipedia is more of an aristocracy than a democracy or anarchy."
But WP is NOT a democracy or anarchy! mike4ty4 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)