CZ Talk:Neutrality Policy/Archive 1

This page was borrowed from a December 2001 policy page on Wikipedia. It needs (or needed) to be edited, but it is serviceable for our present needs.

Unibased writing and thinking is quite hard in a competitive, business driven culture. We are taught to present our beliefs in as convincing a manner as we can. So I apreciate these helpful hints:

• unbiased writing means presenting controversial views without asserting them.

--Janos Abel

Wikipedia has a similar policy on pseudoscience, but with stronger language than us. Now their neutrality policy is often embattled in so-called "arbitration" cases, should we do something to prevent that? However, in another hand, our policy with the current wording, I personally think it's less likely to have those cases like Wikipedia does. Yi Zhe Wu 18:20, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

section "An Example" contains false information

This fragment was taken from Wikipedia, and (I assume automatically) "Wikipedians" was replaced by "Citizens".

"It might help to consider an example of a biased text and how Citizens have rendered it at least relatively unbiased. On the abortion page, early in 2001 [...]"

I think that in this case it should say "Wikipedians", perhaps with some clarification, like a link to the Wikipedia page. --Ion Alexandru Morega 05:12, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks--deleted. --Larry Sanger 07:55, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Pseudoscience

The majority vs. minority thing works well for crackpot ideas, but what about raging controversies like global warming? My reading of the science over the last 10 years indicates both (1) strong scientific support for the idea that it's mostly natural and (2) occasional polls showing a solid minority of scientists leaning toward man-made causation (but nothing like a "consensus" favoring it.

So should a CZ article on climate call the pro-anthropogenic view a "minority" view on this basis, or should our project agree with Democrats and Greens that the minority is on the other side, i.e., that there is an overwhelming consensus favoring AGW (as the recent "literature search" published in Science indicated)? --Ed Poor 20:32, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Ed, I think your assumption is incorrect. Most scientist do agree global warming exist and is caused by carbon emission. It's undeniable. The view that global warming doesn't exist, or human activities did not contribute to it, is a minority view. Yi Zhe Wu 21:29, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Do we have an instance here of conflicting (and unsupported) assertions? "Most scientists do agree that global warming exists..." is likely to be near the truth. Why couple to it "...and is caused by (manmade) carbon emmissions" when this last statement is clearly more controversial?--Janos Abel 05:33, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Without taking a position on this, the real question here is a strictly empirical and factual one: how many climate scientists (not all scientists--who cares about them?) believe that global warming is caused by carbon emissions?" I think, but do not know, that it is still a large majority.

Now, the neutrality issue here is certainly not whether the article should be biased in favor of AGW because it's the majority relevant-scientist view. The article ought not to take sides, period. But if there is limited space in an article, or as an article expands, the proportion of (unbiased) space spent on non-AGW views should be commensurate with the degree of acceptance of the views among the relevant scientists.

This would not be the case in an article that is specifically devoted to summarizing the debate itself, as opposed to the state of the art.

I'd also like to point out that, as with intelligent design, we can have long meaty articles about views that are widely rejected by most scientists. (Just not idiosyncratic, clearly crackpot theories.) --Larry Sanger 06:15, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

New Proposal

I just posted this to the forums at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1104.msg8585.html#msg8585 , but wanted to put the text here as well, as a proposed protocol for enacting/enforcing our stated Neutrality policy:

Knowledge comes in different kinds. A scientific theory works differently from a religious dogma, which works differently than a claim about the importance of a certain poet, which works differently from historical interpretation. To lump them all together indeed paints a bleak picture -- no sense writing encyclopedias at all, then. If people will always insist that the "make up their minds" themselves on every topic, then these people will be better served by just trolling the internet on their own, or by their local public library.

I think we need several tiers here -- this is based on, but extended from, the Neutrality policy docs:

1) Is the entry simply factual? Lincoln was assassinated. The Earth revolves around the Sun. Canada's newest territory is Nunavut. The atomic number of Helium is 2. These do not have "other sides" and can be presented as facts, and there's no application of the Neutrality principle.

2) Is the entry about a scientific theory (evolution, general relativity, the Big Bang, Global Warming)? If so, the primary goal is to set forth the nature and history of this theory, how and how well it explains known data, and what degree -- at present -- of consensus there is about this theory in the scientific community. If there are scientifically valid objections to or alternative explanations of what this theory deals with, they must be stated. However, the political views or religious views about this theory (Young Earth Creationists' objections to the Earth's geological history, religious conservatives' objections to stem-cell reasearch) these, though they must be covered neutrally, should be addressed in separate articles in the appropriate workgroup, cross-referenced with the science entries.

3) Is the entry about a historical, literary, or cultural event, person, or phenomenon? If so, then its known facts should be stated in the lede, and any and all interpretations of the matter within any relevant discipline given, either in a synthetic summary or ad seriatim. Neutrality demands that any view which has validity within any discipline, theoretical approach, or view be described. Proportionate representation may be appropriate (i.e., more coverage of the most prevalent views, less coverage of the minority or alternative view(s)).

4) Is the entry about a political issue, a social policy issue, or a religious issue, or any issue which could never be resolved by simple appeal to facts? If so, as with #3, all views must be given. In these cases also, proportionate coverage is less likely to be appropriate, as extended coverage of any one view may seem to be an endorsement.

In type 1 articles, we're fine. With type 2, we may want to have a role like that of the proposed Subject Editors; an expert in the sciences who, having committed to the policy, will work at top level to ensure neutrality. With types 3 and 4, I think constable enforcement is the way to go; mutual respect will be required and any super-editor likely resented by all. Not sure whether the constabulary or a Subject editor should decide on the proprtional issue.

I propose that all topics be classed initially with one of these types. The type would dictate the protocol applied. If there was a dispute about the type classifiation, the Editorial Board or the Editor-in-Chief should rule on it.