Vast majority of sources in controversial topics are usually biased. There
are topics where there is in fact no any non-biased sources. And - coming
back to my previous example, having knowledge how automatic method o bias
measurement works it is very easy to bully it:

"According to unfaithful bastard X [source X1][source X2][source X3] the
true is A. But, according to honorable and widely recognized expert Y
[source Y] A it is not true, but the true is B."

This sentence is quite obviously biased towards B POV, but  automatic
measurement of sources will tell you that there is bias towards A POV.  And
this is very simple, primitive example of bias. People usually tend to do
it in much more subtle way. Sometimes one short, completely unsourced
sentence at the end of very long article with hundreds of citations can
completely ruin NPOV...

Or imagine that you write article about a bishop - quite naturally most
sources will be religious POV - which does not necessarily mean that the
article is biased as it might contain only basic facts of that person
retrieved from official church sources. Then - following this example  - in
Polish Wikipedia - we have probably articles about all living bishops from
major christian denomination. But if you would want to "prove" that Polish
Wikipedia has pro-roman-catholic POV you can easily show that we have 162
articles about roman-catholic Polish bishops and only 12 about orthodox
bishops. And the numbers of citations is more or less probably of the same
proportion. Why? Simply because we have in Poland 162 catholic bishops and
12 orthodox. Wikipedia cannot change it obviously ;-)





czw., 6 gru 2018 o 02:19 Dennis During <dcdur...@gmail.com> napisał(a):

> Yes the method can miss bias. But if the references* used are* biased, it
> would provide clear, objective (though not irrefutable) evidence of a
> general bias.  The more factual the discussion, the more likely it will be
> that any conclusions of the process will be accepted, if not by all at
> Croatia WP, then perhaps by some there and by most other observers.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:45 PM Tomasz Ganicz <polime...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't clearly understand Gerard what is your idea. Do you want to
> measure
> > NPOV by calculating how often the sources are used after somehow marking
> > them to belong to one or another group of political, religous or other
> type
> > of  POV? And when you find that one group of them are more often cited
> than
> > the others, this is a symptom of systematic bias of given Wikimedia
> > project? Well that might be quite misleading because the issue is the
> > honesty and context of using sources.
> >
> > For example: One can write an article about any controversial topic using
> > equal number of  sources supporting opposite POVs, but the text can still
> > be quite biased:
> >
> > "According to unfaithful bastard X [source X] the true is A. But,
> according
> > to honourable and widely recognized expert Y [source Y] A it is not true,
> > but the true is B."
> >
> > I don't believe in any kind of automated method of measuring NPOV. NPOV
> is
> > very complex issue needed human judgment. You can't avoid it.
> >
> >
> > śr., 28 lis 2018 o 12:43 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > I take offence calling it a faith-based process. We have a database
> with
> > > the citations of all Wikipedias. We have overriding principles that
> > include
> > > the NPOV and what the role of functionaries is in Wikimedia projects.
> > When
> > > they are a faith, they are our faith.
> > >
> > > My question to you is, why are you reluctant to start a process that
> will
> > > bring down many hobby horses including yours and the ones in your
> > favourite
> > > project. Why not start where we face an urgency? An urgency that
> > undermines
> > > Wikipedia as NPOV!
> > > Thanks,
> > >       GerardM
> > >
> > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 00:31, Dennis During <dcdur...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why not test-run the process on my favorite project - or yours?  We
> > > should
> > > > get started.
> > > >
> > > > I am skeptical of the quality of judgment without a foundation of
> > facts.
> > > > At Wiktionary we have two main definition evaluation processes, one
> > > > dependent on citations to which interpretative judgment is applies.
> IMO
> > > > this process works very well.  The other depends on opinion, votes,
> > > > supported by whatever facts or authority or bluster (my specialty)
> > > > advocates bring to bear.  That process, though adequate, is not as
> > > > satisfactory.
> > > >
> > > > Gerard Meijssen has suggested a faith-based process. If it is almost
> > > ready
> > > > to go, let it be validated and put to use.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:45 Benjamin Lees <emufarm...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:06 AM Dennis During <dcdur...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who is the judge? Are we going to join Facebook, Google, Twitter,
> > et
> > > al
> > > > > as
> > > > > > the new press barons?
> > > > >
> > > > > All of our work on the projects necessarily involves making
> > judgments.
> > > > > As a movement we have largely decided that editors on individual
> > > > > projects should be the ones to make those judgments.  But in some
> > > > > extreme cases, our judgment may be that we need different judges.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM Dennis During <dcdur...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly.  In this
> > > case
> > > > I
> > > > > > think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process
> > > > > applied.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know whether this is the process we want.  But if it is,
> > > > > somebody's gotta go first.
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > I
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: 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, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Dennis C. During
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to