The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> WP:V will always be flawed, no matter how the open is worded
that one guy
post Mon 7th November 2011, 4:30pm
Post #1


Doesn't get it either.
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri 2nd May 2008, 4:35pm
From: A computer somewhere in this world
Member No.: 5,935



First off, lets define "flawed". Flawed in this case will be open for gaming, lawyering, yadda yadda. That being said lets continue.

Lets look at the current wording, or the (in)famous "verifiability, not truth" line. The intent is to allow any content that is verifiable to be added. The truth value does not matter. So if an article in the news paper is verified to exist, the data in it can be added. Now what if the data is false? Well that's no matter cause it's verifiable.

Now lets pull out "not truth". Can we verify the data via sources? Yes we can, and the data can be added. Now is that data true? Nope, but we still can add it cause it's verified data. Truth value doesn't matter still believe it or not.

For the kicker, lets say it says "verifiability and truth". Now we have verified data. We add it. But it gets removed cause some guy says it's not true. Commence argument, edit wars, blah blah blah. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

I know this is a very pessimistic view and probably flawed as well, but that's how I see things. I'm open to flames really (but please keep them civil and back them up), but that's my view.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Casliber
post Tue 8th November 2011, 10:06am
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri 19th Oct 2007, 10:08pm
Member No.: 3,559

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



But wow, one of the biggest turnouts for RfC I've seen in a while - currently 255 support change and 144 opposed. Chuck in some neutrals and that's over 400 votes! Now wouldn't it have been fun to decipher the page if it'd been unformatted "discussion".....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Tue 8th November 2011, 2:51pm
Post #3


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Encyclopedia text can be crafted so that it is always true, by consensus. What I've seen is that this is avoided because factions want to present their point of view as true, and demand RS -- no synthesis allowed -- for opposing positions, but not for their own, since it is, they believe "obviously scientific consensus" or whatever.

Suppose that a source, independently published, meeting ordinary RS standards (most newspapers meet this, for example), says "The Moon is made of green cheese." An article cannot and should not say, "The Moon is made of green cheese." Rather, it can say, "According to [RS], the Moon is made of green cheese." That's verifiable, and verification is, in fact, verification of truth.

Wikipedia policies often leave out the most critical factor: consensus. They also seem to believe that neutrality is an absolute, itself true/false. In fact, neutrality is a goal, an ideal to be sought, and the only measure of it is the degree of consensus. If we have 100% consensus on a point, without excluding contrary points of view, we may treat a thing as neutral. In large bodies, 100% consensus might not be obtainable, but seeking it will always improve neutrality if it's possible.

That is, what's left out is the actual implementation. That's convenient, because it then leaves power in the hands of those with advantages as to tools. This is probably not going to be fixed without some major intervention. I'm not holding my breath.

One of the reasons I was banned was that I had learned how to seek and find broad consensus. When this contradicted the opinions and habits of certain administrators, I became quite unpopular. In RfC/JzG 3, I presented conclusive (and concise, by the way) evidence for administrative recusal failure. There is a reason why Durova cosigned that! Two-thirds of those commenting asked for Abd to be banned. For filing a clear, policy-based RfC.

ArbComm confirmed the RfC, in RfAr/Abd and JzG. The very fact that my name was in the RfAr shows institutional bias. I was not alleged to have violated any policies, so it should not have been about me at all. It was treated as a personal dispute. That RfAr might not have gone anywhere if one of the arbitrators had not independently compiled the same evidence. Before that, my evidence was rejected as biased, without any specifics. Obviously, the thinking went, I must have cherry-picked it. I hadn't. It was straight, full disclosure and coverage, all relevant edits. And what they thought were my biased summaries were not, they were JzG's summaries, which I'd italicized. They were quite enough to impeach him.

That was a beautiful demonstration of how a cabal functions on Wikipedia, without there being necessary any "improper collaboration." It's mob rule, whatever mob can gather. ArbComm refused to face this. Instead, later mailing list revelations showed, they sought to shoot the messenger, and they waited until the next RfAr to do it, where I was more vulnerable. I was actually fooled by the first RfAr into thinking ArbComm would function fairly. Rather, the situation was far too blatant then, they couldn't shoot me at that point because it would have been entirely too obvious.

This post has been edited by Abd: Tue 8th November 2011, 2:54pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
that one guy
post Tue 8th November 2011, 3:04pm
Post #4


Doesn't get it either.
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri 2nd May 2008, 4:35pm
From: A computer somewhere in this world
Member No.: 5,935



Which arbcom case are you talking about here? I've only seen one involving you and it wasn't titled Abd-JzG.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Tue 8th November 2011, 9:59pm
Post #5


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(that one guy @ Tue 8th November 2011, 10:04am) *

Which arbcom case are you talking about here? I've only seen one involving you and it wasn't titled Abd-JzG.
Abd and JzG, sorry. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th 10 14, 12:32am