Wikipedia: Egern

I shall be ruled by you, sir. (from some Shakespearean play, I think). I'm currently wondering whether to engage the interlocutor or just wait for him to get bored.

By the way, where's the "unvandalized" version?

--[[Ed Poor[[

Ed, it's not my attempt to overrule you, I just don't want a vandal to be encouraged. If you want to work on the article, I've restored the non-vandalized version.

In view of some of your recent comments I would be interested in knowing if you know much about the topic of feminism, and especially 19th century feminism in the United States?

You seem to believe that you have no bias yourself. Perhaps this is true. The problem is that after you study a topic for a long time you generally do have certain views about it. Do you feel that a lack of knowledge of the topic of feminism is the reason that you have to wipe out other people's work, rather than correct it? What I mean is do you have a gut feeling that what I've said is wrong, but lack the ability to balance it out because of your ignorance, and this is why you resort to simply wiping out entire paragraphs?

Perhaps I should ask someone who knows something about the topic to look at the page (that is -- before you vandalised it). David Byron

Well now I am embarrassed by what I wrote because you decided to reinstate my efforts... but honestly I do wonder about how the system of balances and checks can work if on some obscure topic one person is writing with enthusiasm (and therefore likely a POV) and the people who would normally be the saftey net aren't as knowledgeable. Said without prejudice. I don't know what you know about the topic. Call it a theoretical question.

I freely admit that I have biases. I try to be aware of my biases when I write an article, and I (like lots of other people here) try to correct biases from others that I find to be wrong. But I am also human, which means that I make mistakes and I sometimes show my bias even when I try otherwise. You are correct that often people who care passionately about a controversial subject often know more about it and are less able to be objective. Feminism is obviously a subject that both you and I feel strongly about. I let my emotions overrule my reactions to this subject, and it was inappropriate. I am not a "senior" participant in this project, by the way. I am relatively new here, although not as new as you are.

I have a little experience with XP programming and with Wiki in other contexts. But this encyclopedia is something else. I really like Wiki, but I have to wonder if this is just too much. This whole project is like some Wiki-nutcase asked themselves one day, what's the hardest most mind-blowing thing to do with Wiki? What is the hardest thing to do considering the supposed weaknesses of Wiki?. Oh right. Let's write an authoratative document. No make it 100,000 authoratative documents.....

Sure. I'm game :-)

But I think this is a bridge too far. On the other hand I think the commitment and discipline of the Wiki way will help me thresh out my own ideas on feminism which I find invaluable. I've been on the net for about three years discussing feminism with hundreds of feminists on bill boards but the problem is without a structure it becomes flame almost immidiately (partly because most feminists don't know much about feminism). Don't worry I am not going to turn the article into an argument for my favourite theories on feminism - beleive me it gets a lot worse than what you've seen so far. Actually just trying to put down words in a good structure has already been rewarding for me. David Byron

I noticed you removed an "of course" from the God article. I agree that that particular article was better without it, but for a rebuttal of the general principle that the words "of course" should never be used here, see [1].

Hmmm, that is an interesting example of when it might be acceptable to use "of course". My first take on it (and here is a long reply) is that the parallel construction that is used there is a little awkward. Is it saying the following?

 the Hebrew letter "Aleph" is often used by mathematicians to denote certain kinds of infinity
 the Hebrew letter "Aleph" is also used by mathematicians in ordinary Hebrew text.

or is it saying this:

 the Hebrew letter "Aleph" is often used by mathematicians to denote certain kinds of infinity
 the Hebrew letter "Aleph" is also used generally in ordinary Hebrew text

I actually think the phrasing is ambiguous as to what it means, but my guess is that it means the latter. If it means the latter, then I think the construction isn't quite right, and I would probably rephrase it with some other parallel construction, probably without the "of course". I think the "of course" is a way of justifying repetition in the two clauses of the sentence, because you are using "Hebrew" in both parts of it, so the "of course" is a way of acknowledging the repetition in the second clause and explaining it away with an "of course". Anyway, you could say:

: Yes, I meant the latter. But I'm not trying to cover repitition, I'm deliberately using "of course" to say something like "This usage, unlike the one I just mentioned earlier, is not a special usage by a limited group for some odd purpose, but the everyday usage you'd expect, and I'm just mentioning it here to be complete."

 In addition to its everyday use in Hebrew text, the letter "Aleph" is also used in mathematical notation to denote certain kinds of infinity.

: Yes, that works quite well, and is pretty much what the sentence says, but you're omitting the context around the sentence: that I'm trying to explain the difference between a "character" as a unit of information and a "glyph" which is its physical appearance; notably, different characters can share an apprearance, for example, the Hebrew letter Aleph.... If I used your sentence, I'd have to say "For example, the Hebrew letter Aleph, in addition to its everyday use in Hebrew text, is also used...". It's purely a matter of taste, but I find that one a bit awkward. I'd rather have the main point of the sentence (that the character has this special use) up front and complete, and only then mention that oh, by the way, that's a special case.

: At any rate, I'm sure it could be worded in many other ways; I just used it as an example that one of the ways I happen to like has an "of course" in it, and that it seemed OK in that case. Just a curiosity.

In that case, I am not repeating "Hebrew" because the antecedent is in the previous clause and "Hebrew" is implied. But even if I did put "Hebrew" in the second clause, I think it would only be a little awkward.

or:

 In addition to its general use in the everyday text, the Hebrew letter "Aleph" is also used in mathematical notation to denote certain kinds of infinity.

Anyway, my 2 cents worth. Thanks for pointing out that example, though--I can definitely see where it is not exactly the same thing as the use of "of course" as it often appears in other examples, and I am not terribly bothered but it in the example you cited.

It is clear to me that there is little serious committment to NPOV in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects seem to end up being everyone's pet debating forum, where everyone tries to get their own side in. Then the article becomes "balanced" if both sides manage to get an approximately equal amount of text into the article. If one side doesn't happen to participate in this process, oh well, c'est la vie.

This whole process can be carried out to absurdity. An article on cross burning? Oh yeah, here's how the wikipedia approach would work: "Well, proponents say that it is a legitimate form of self expression to protect the white race, while opponents consider it intimidation." Slavery? "Proponents argue that certain classes of human beings are inferior, while others believe that all human beings have the right to dignity". Blah blah blah. This is NPOV, this is just nonsense. --Egern

Things that can be done about it:

This issue can be ignored, as more than 95% of articles don't have such problems. This is probably prefered solution now.
In such projects, people follow existing examples, this can be exploited in some way. Still quite realistic.
Structure of project changes the way participants behave, this can be exploited in some way. Least realistic, but could give best results.

Of course no specifics from me - I've never made scientific research about NPOV issue on Wikipedia. --Taw