Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
I have posted 4 sentences, kind of a draft of a draft of a draft. It is very overwhelming for me to draft text with near-legal precision on my own. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'd say be bold and start drafting. Many people respond to a flawed (or at least improvable) text more readily than they do to an open invitation to contribute. I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias, and think it'd be a good idea to bolster NPOV with a Board resolution. Not because it would instantly solve the problem, of course, but I see its value in supporting those editors who'd fight to uphold NPOV. A. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy#Draft_of_text_for_a_binding_Neutral_Point_of_View_WMF_policy I started above text to draft a text for the board to review. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote: A talk page on meta wont be noticed by much which is why perhaps this is the better location for the discussion. It is not like I am proposing a meta policy. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated it would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core value. -- 㠨㠂る白㠄猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of directors... Fred That was snippy... Editing a major meta policy page must be done with considerable caution, starting by making suggestions on its talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutral_point_of_view There is some, rather limited, discussion in section 3. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l , mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
After running a task force for BLP in two phases over six months back in '09-'10, everything pointed toward something MZMcBride wrote on meta. It covers this. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/BLP https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Living_People_Policy It just needs to be official. On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 2:36 AM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote: I have posted 4 sentences, kind of a draft of a draft of a draft. It is very overwhelming for me to draft text with near-legal precision on my own. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'd say be bold and start drafting. Many people respond to a flawed (or at least improvable) text more readily than they do to an open invitation to contribute. I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias, and think it'd be a good idea to bolster NPOV with a Board resolution. Not because it would instantly solve the problem, of course, but I see its value in supporting those editors who'd fight to uphold NPOV. A. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy#Draft_of_text_for_a_binding_Neutral_Point_of_View_WMF_policy I started above text to draft a text for the board to review. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote: A talk page on meta wont be noticed by much which is why perhaps this is the better location for the discussion. It is not like I am proposing a meta policy. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated it would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core value. -- 㠨㠂る白㠄猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of directors... Fred That was snippy... Editing a major meta policy page must be done with considerable caution, starting by making suggestions on its talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutral_point_of_view There is some, rather limited, discussion in section 3. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l , mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
I have posted 4 sentences, kind of a draft of a draft of a draft. It is very overwhelming for me to draft text with near-legal precision on my own. -- ã¨ããç½ãç« (To Aru Shiroi Neko) I've added a bit. I'll do some copyediting later. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
On Sat, 5 Oct 2013, at 18:47, Fred Bauder wrote: I've been thinking about this. Wikipedia is a compilation of information from sources that are generally considered reliable. The trouble is that the information in those sources varies. Rather than deciding ourselves, after all most of us are amateurs, what the truth is, we present all the views in reliable sources without trying to decide which is right or even better, although there may be sourced information which does do that which can be included. Fred This is simply false. If a third source says that one of two reliable sources is wrong or simply worse, the third source is not ignored. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
On Sat, 5 Oct 2013, at 18:47, Fred Bauder wrote: I've been thinking about this. Wikipedia is a compilation of information from sources that are generally considered reliable. The trouble is that the information in those sources varies. Rather than deciding ourselves, after all most of us are amateurs, what the truth is, we present all the views in reliable sources without trying to decide which is right or even better, although there may be sourced information which does do that which can be included. Fred This is simply false. If a third source says that one of two reliable sources is wrong or simply worse, the third source is not ignored. It is not simply false. Provided such a criticism is found in a reliable source, neutral point of view would require it be included. For example, in a climate change article, information about the poor factual basis of climate change denial should be included. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
I've been thinking about this. Wikipedia is a compilation of information from sources that are generally considered reliable. The trouble is that the information in those sources varies. Rather than deciding ourselves, after all most of us are amateurs, what the truth is, we present all the views in reliable sources without trying to decide which is right or even better, although there may be sourced information which does do that which can be included. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
Indeed larger wikis have vibrant local communities that uphold NPOV for the most part. Such wikis would not be affected by such a board resolution too much as they essentially upload NPOV anyways. Smaller developing wikis on the other hand sometimes have people who even want to create policies that ban the notion of NPOV. We even had attempts of religious rules dictate content on ace.wikipedia for example. I would recommend against translating en.wikipedia's NPOV policy for such wikis as it is too complicated for a smaller wiki. Over time the wiki would develop the policy using such a board resolution as a guideline. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 2:48 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias, asaf, could you please elaborate a little bit what you mean by this? do you not share the experience that the editors were able to come up with reasonable and well thought out rules they follow, since wikipedia exists? and many of the rules were discussed. and most of them discussed again? isn't this one of the cores which made wikipedia so successful? rupert. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy#Draft_of_text_for_a_binding_Neutral_Point_of_View_WMF_policy I started above text to draft a text for the board to review. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.comwrote: A talk page on meta wont be noticed by much which is why perhaps this is the better location for the discussion. It is not like I am proposing a meta policy. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote: I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated it would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core value. -- 㠨㠂る白㠄猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of directors... Fred That was snippy... Editing a major meta policy page must be done with considerable caution, starting by making suggestions on its talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutral_point_of_view There is some, rather limited, discussion in section 3. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
I'd say be bold and start drafting. Many people respond to a flawed (or at least improvable) text more readily than they do to an open invitation to contribute. I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias, and think it'd be a good idea to bolster NPOV with a Board resolution. Not because it would instantly solve the problem, of course, but I see its value in supporting those editors who'd fight to uphold NPOV. A. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:26 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy#Draft_of_text_for_a_binding_Neutral_Point_of_View_WMF_policy I started above text to draft a text for the board to review. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:56 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote: A talk page on meta wont be noticed by much which is why perhaps this is the better location for the discussion. It is not like I am proposing a meta policy. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated it would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core value. -- 㠨㠂る白㠄猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of directors... Fred That was snippy... Editing a major meta policy page must be done with considerable caution, starting by making suggestions on its talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutral_point_of_view There is some, rather limited, discussion in section 3. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias, asaf, could you please elaborate a little bit what you mean by this? do you not share the experience that the editors were able to come up with reasonable and well thought out rules they follow, since wikipedia exists? and many of the rules were discussed. and most of them discussed again? isn't this one of the cores which made wikipedia so successful? rupert. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias, asaf, could you please elaborate a little bit what you mean by this? do you not share the experience that the editors were able to come up with reasonable and well thought out rules they follow, since wikipedia exists? and many of the rules were discussed. and most of them discussed again? isn't this one of the cores which made wikipedia so successful? rupert. For the most part; however, and I speak only of the English Wikipedia, there are topics where pov prevails due to the skill and power of its advocates. I suspect much worse things elsewhere. By the way, I regularly, and deliberately, engage in point of view writing elsewhere; I know it when I see it. Ask yourself, where is the article [[processed food]]? If you want an good education in public relations techniques, try to write one... Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
Asaf Bartov wrote: I'd say be bold and start drafting. Many people respond to a flawed (or at least improvable) text more readily than they do to an open invitation to contribute. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law :-) (There are occasionally suggestions of intentionally setting 'cunningtraps' in new articles [small typos, mostly] in order to get more people to edit. ;-) MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
For data oriented projects such as Wikidata, Wikisource, Commons I think NPOV still applies as we shouldn't censor data just because our POV has issues with it. Consider this in the context of - Mohammed image controversy for Commons (how they aren't deleted) - Bible versions for Wikisource (how we don't only present the correct version) - (Although a new project) Interwiki links for Wikidata (how we don't exclude languages) Of course not being censored is not the same thing as being neutral but if censored, neutrality is further away. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote: On 9/16/2013 7:33 PM, Risker wrote: I am not certain that neutral point of view applies to all Wikimedia projects. Wikiversity programs may deliberately examine one aspect of a subject while ignoring others, for example. It is difficult to apply the concept of neutrality to images and other media, some of which is explicitly non-neutral (see the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed images). I am not sure that neutral point of view applies to Wiktionary at all. Once the topic unit is selected (an article title in Wikipedia, a word in Wiktionary, or a destination in Wikivoyage, for example), I think a concept of neutrality within that topic is not actually that difficult. Whether we require it everywhere is a policy choice, but it is certainly possible. Maintaining the design of a Wikiversity program need not be different in kind from avoiding off-topic digressions in a Wikipedia article. Obviously it makes sense to adapt our understanding of neutrality to the mission of each project. I believe our projects have generally tried conscientiously to maintain that spirit in a way that suits their context. But although it may superficially appear non-neutral to enforce criteria and boundaries for topic units, I think the answer to that lies in the ambition to universality of our projects. If by simply defining a topic we deviate from neutrality, the way to restore it is by covering all topics. When dealing with source material, as with Wikimedia Commons or Wikisource, then neutrality may be a concept one step removed from the mission of the project. Faithful reproduction may be closer to what we are really looking for. However, neutrality is still a value worth considering in terms of the overall collection of source material, and certainly in how that material gets presented and contextualized in our other projects. --Michael Snow __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=**unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
I am not disputing how settled it is but I don't think meta sufficiently achieves expressing how settled this core value really is. As you stated it would be more of a restatement and re-emphasis of what already is a core value. -- ã¨ããç½ãç« (To Aru Shiroi Neko) Yes, good idea, needs to be done. Please notify the board of directors... Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
Hi all, I realize Resolution:Biographies of living people[1] implies this but I fail to see any resolution that establishes neutral point of view as one of our non-negotiable values. I think there is merit in having an over-arching resolution on a Neutral Point of View policy. I also feel Resolution:Biographies of living people suffers from the absence of such a definition of what exactly neutral point of view supposed to mean. [1]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
Hi all, I realize Resolution:Biographies of living people[1] implies this but I fail to see any resolution that establishes neutral point of view as one of our non-negotiable values. I think there is merit in having an over-arching resolution on a Neutral Point of View policy. I also feel Resolution:Biographies of living people suffers from the absence of such a definition of what exactly neutral point of view supposed to mean. [1]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people Neutral point of view is one of the founding principles of Wikipedia and was promulgated by its founder, Jimmy Wales, and strongly supported by its co-founder, Larry Sanger, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_viewdiff=270453oldid=270452#The_original_statement_of_the_neutral_point_of_view_policy The first edits to the page is dated November 10, 2001 but I think the very first edits of that page are no longer available. It's not an unwritten constitution... Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
On 16 September 2013 21:45, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I realize Resolution:Biographies of living people[1] implies this but I fail to see any resolution that establishes neutral point of view as one of our non-negotiable values. I think there is merit in having an over-arching resolution on a Neutral Point of View policy. I also feel Resolution:Biographies of living people suffers from the absence of such a definition of what exactly neutral point of view supposed to mean. [1]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people I am not certain that neutral point of view applies to all Wikimedia projects. Wikiversity programs may deliberately examine one aspect of a subject while ignoring others, for example. It is difficult to apply the concept of neutrality to images and other media, some of which is explicitly non-neutral (see the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed images). I am not sure that neutral point of view applies to Wiktionary at all. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
Wikivoyage uses https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Be_fair, which isn't exactly the same thing. Thanks, Rschen7754 rschen7754.w...@gmail.com On Sep 16, 2013, at 7:33 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 September 2013 21:45, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I realize Resolution:Biographies of living people[1] implies this but I fail to see any resolution that establishes neutral point of view as one of our non-negotiable values. I think there is merit in having an over-arching resolution on a Neutral Point of View policy. I also feel Resolution:Biographies of living people suffers from the absence of such a definition of what exactly neutral point of view supposed to mean. [1]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people I am not certain that neutral point of view applies to all Wikimedia projects. Wikiversity programs may deliberately examine one aspect of a subject while ignoring others, for example. It is difficult to apply the concept of neutrality to images and other media, some of which is explicitly non-neutral (see the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed images). I am not sure that neutral point of view applies to Wiktionary at all. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
On 9/16/2013 7:33 PM, Risker wrote: I am not certain that neutral point of view applies to all Wikimedia projects. Wikiversity programs may deliberately examine one aspect of a subject while ignoring others, for example. It is difficult to apply the concept of neutrality to images and other media, some of which is explicitly non-neutral (see the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed images). I am not sure that neutral point of view applies to Wiktionary at all. Once the topic unit is selected (an article title in Wikipedia, a word in Wiktionary, or a destination in Wikivoyage, for example), I think a concept of neutrality within that topic is not actually that difficult. Whether we require it everywhere is a policy choice, but it is certainly possible. Maintaining the design of a Wikiversity program need not be different in kind from avoiding off-topic digressions in a Wikipedia article. Obviously it makes sense to adapt our understanding of neutrality to the mission of each project. I believe our projects have generally tried conscientiously to maintain that spirit in a way that suits their context. But although it may superficially appear non-neutral to enforce criteria and boundaries for topic units, I think the answer to that lies in the ambition to universality of our projects. If by simply defining a topic we deviate from neutrality, the way to restore it is by covering all topics. When dealing with source material, as with Wikimedia Commons or Wikisource, then neutrality may be a concept one step removed from the mission of the project. Faithful reproduction may be closer to what we are really looking for. However, neutrality is still a value worth considering in terms of the overall collection of source material, and certainly in how that material gets presented and contextualized in our other projects. --Michael Snow ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
