They want to delete us again

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-09-03 01:19am

The idea that the best article never makes it appear as if one side is correct is utterly idiotic. Sometimes there are two legitimate arguments to be made, but sometimes there simply aren't. There are people out there who still disbelieve in germ theory, but nobody in his right mind would enshrine their idiocy in an encyclopedia.

The worst thing about Wikipedia is that for many lazy and cheap people, it has replaced traditional encyclopedias (you know, those people who actually have professional editorial standards), which means that it will impact the market for traditional encyclopedias. And that, in turn, will contribute further to the dumbing-down of society by harming publishers of said encylopedias financially and (potentially) putting them out of business. The very notion of a "democratic" encyclopedia strikes me as staggeringly wrong.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-09-03 01:27am

Something to consider. A newspaper's online paper allowed people to write and improve editorials much like Wikipedia. They tried this as an experiment, but quickly shut it down after seeing similar results as Wikipedia. They intend on reopening the project, but limiting it to only people who are authories on the subject. I could see something similar to Wikipedia being succesful if it were limited to only accept authorities on a subject and had a requirement of telling the truth, not telling the NPOV concept.

Anyway, one result of NPOV is this. Some articles are clearly POV, so the alternate POV gets its own article.

Moon Landing
Moon Landing Hoax
Evolution
Creationism

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-09-03 01:30am

I don't really see a problem with including articles about the Apolo Moon Landing Hoax and Creationism. Articles like that aren't always the product of NPOV, but because they are subject matter which are extensive enough.

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2005-09-03 01:31am

Except that Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia. The Moon Landing Hoax and Creationism are clearly wrong regardless of how many delusional people believe in them, and thus deserve to be "POV" within their own article- that is, the text should be "against" the topic. Anything less is misleading and does not belong in an encyclopedia.

If that already does happen, then I completely have no point in making this post and ignore me.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-09-03 01:33am

MRDOD wrote:Except that Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia. The Moon Landing Hoax and Creationism are clearly wrong regardless of how many delusional people believe in them, and thus deserve to be "POV" within their own article- that is, the text should be "against" the topic. Anything less is misleading and does not belong in an encyclopedia.

If that already does happen, then I completely have no point in making this post and ignore me.

Each article which is "contraversial" has a criticism section added to it. Evolution has a critcism as does Creationism and the Moon Hoax article.

Zadius · Post by **Zadius** » 2005-09-03 03:25am

Darth Wong wrote:The worst thing about Wikipedia is that for many lazy and cheap people, it has replaced traditional encyclopedias

Couldn't it be argued that the internet itself has replaced traditional encyclopedias? It's more likely these days for someone to "google it" rather than flip through an encyclopedia.

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2005-09-03 01:37pm

Alyeska wrote: Each article which is "contraversial" has a criticism section added to it. Evolution has a critcism as does Creationism and the Moon Hoax article.

Still unacceptable. Evolution's criticism excepting scientific progress (Lamarckian Inheritance, etc.) is all handwaving and the theory is scientifically verified. Unless the "Criticism" section includes a rebuttal to all the dumb arguments made there, and the Creationism section is utterly demolished by its own Criticism section, it still is a lie.

And even if so, if Moon Hoax is treated as fact except in a specified "Dur This En't True" section, that alone is a telling condemnation on Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

What if 10% of the world believed Gays caused Hurricane Katrina or The Asian Tsunami or 9/11? Would there have to be a "Gays Cause God's Wrath" article telling how they did it, and then a "Criticism" section saying "Critics allege that the people who say this are raving dumbasses."?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-09-03 04:10pm

MRDOD wrote:
Alyeska wrote: Each article which is "contraversial" has a criticism section added to it. Evolution has a critcism as does Creationism and the Moon Hoax article.
Still unacceptable. Evolution's criticism excepting scientific progress (Lamarckian Inheritance, etc.) is all handwaving and the theory is scientifically verified. Unless the "Criticism" section includes a rebuttal to all the dumb arguments made there, and the Creationism section is utterly demolished by its own Criticism section, it still is a lie.

And even if so, if Moon Hoax is treated as fact except in a specified "Dur This En't True" section, that alone is a telling condemnation on Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

What if 10% of the world believed Gays caused Hurricane Katrina or The Asian Tsunami or 9/11? Would there have to be a "Gays Cause God's Wrath" article telling how they did it, and then a "Criticism" section saying "Critics allege that the people who say this are raving dumbasses."?

That sums it up nicely. NPOV lets any crackpot contribute without care for the facts.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-09-03 04:20pm

Zadius wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The worst thing about Wikipedia is that for many lazy and cheap people, it has replaced traditional encyclopedias
Couldn't it be argued that the internet itself has replaced traditional encyclopedias? It's more likely these days for someone to "google it" rather than flip through an encyclopedia.

Only if you're incredibly lazy. There's so much information out there that -isn't- on the internet, you'd have to be ridiculously stupid to rely solely on the internet for a source of information. No sane researcher relies exclusively on one source for their information.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-09-03 11:24pm

MRDOD wrote:Still unacceptable. Evolution's criticism excepting scientific progress (Lamarckian Inheritance, etc.) is all handwaving and the theory is scientifically verified. Unless the "Criticism" section includes a rebuttal to all the dumb arguments made there, and the Creationism section is utterly demolished by its own Criticism section, it still is a lie.

The Creationism section is quite heavily attacked by its own Criticism section. I don't think there is much to worry about, as in the Creation Evolution controversy page - unless you are a dolt already, you should come off with the impression that the Creationists do a lot of nitpicking (at best) and not a lot of fact-finding.

And even if so, if Moon Hoax is treated as fact except in a specified "Dur This En't True" section, that alone is a telling condemnation on Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

It is fairly well rebutted. I'm not concerned.

What if 10% of the world believed Gays caused Hurricane Katrina or The Asian Tsunami or 9/11? Would there have to be a "Gays Cause God's Wrath" article telling how they did it, and then a "Criticism" section saying "Critics allege that the people who say this are raving dumbasses."?

Yes.

As I understand it, the NPOV policy is based on the assumption that most articles will fall into two types:
1) Uncontroversial
2) Controversial, with both sides having at least some validity.

It is difficult for any one author to avoid accidentally squelching a side in "2". The problem is that it doesn't deal very well with the well-known Scenario 3, but this is accepted as a price to improve the presentation of "2" scenarios.