On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwin <[email protected]> wrote: > Jussi-ville writes: > >>> The policy, misused in the course of POV struggle, is a way of excluding >>> information with interferes with presentation of a desired point of view. >>> ... >> > > I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a > must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn > what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original > Research), and who, instead of trying to end-run WP:NOR, waited years > until the article was actually published before trying to modify the > Haymarket article. To me, this is a particularly fascinating case > because the author's article, unlike the great majority of sources for > Wikipedia articles, was peer-reviewed -- this means it underwent > academic scrutiny that the newspapers, magazines, and other popular > sources we rely on never undergo. > > I think the problem really is grounded in the UNDUE WEIGHT policy > itself, as written, and not in mere misuse of the policy. > > > --Mike
I agree. It's the way UNDUE is written that is problematic, and it has led, for years, to significant-minority viewpoints being excluded -- on the grounds that the views are not sufficiently well-represented by reliable sources; or that the reliable sources, even if peer-reviewed, belong to the wrong field. Sarah _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
