> When something is disputed, arguably the most neutral, unbiased way to go about things is to deliver information to each party within the framework that they have established, and technology enables this as a possibility when it used to be cumbersome in the old days.
So in wiki-speak, this view is usually refered to as multiple-points of view, and its an idea people sometimes floated in the early days (i think their was a fork called wikiinfo or something at one point)
Its very different from neutral point of view as understood by wikipedia. The goal of neutrality is to come up with a single consistent narrative that all parties agree is fair and accurate (porportionally). Of course that can be very difficult at times, its more a journey than a destination.
In my mind this is actually the killer feature of wikipedia. Without this we may as well just all host apache web servers or write articles on geocities.
>if Wikimedia wants to assert a position on the Taiwan issue, or politically help Taiwan by supporting its majority viewpoint, then great
Wikimedia does not want to do anything. Wikimedia largely speaking wants to allow some folks in Taiwan to form what is basically a local user group so they can try and talk some museums into uploading photos and maybe have a conference.
The contents of the Taiwan article is a local wikipedia matter, and is not something wikimedia (in whatever sense you mean) should have a say in.
Generally speaking though, wikipedia does not want to support the majority view of anyone, but explain all views proportionally as represented in reliable secondary sources. Of course that can be difficult at times.
> For example, there exist certain species of birds native to the island of Taiwan. Wikipedia can be a great source of information about those birds. It doesn't need to define what type of political entity Taiwan is in order to deliver great information about those birds; as far as the birds are concerned it's just a huge island.
Well yes, but nobody is really fighting about the bird articles
So in wiki-speak, this view is usually refered to as multiple-points of view, and its an idea people sometimes floated in the early days (i think their was a fork called wikiinfo or something at one point)
Its very different from neutral point of view as understood by wikipedia. The goal of neutrality is to come up with a single consistent narrative that all parties agree is fair and accurate (porportionally). Of course that can be very difficult at times, its more a journey than a destination.
In my mind this is actually the killer feature of wikipedia. Without this we may as well just all host apache web servers or write articles on geocities.
>if Wikimedia wants to assert a position on the Taiwan issue, or politically help Taiwan by supporting its majority viewpoint, then great
Wikimedia does not want to do anything. Wikimedia largely speaking wants to allow some folks in Taiwan to form what is basically a local user group so they can try and talk some museums into uploading photos and maybe have a conference.
The contents of the Taiwan article is a local wikipedia matter, and is not something wikimedia (in whatever sense you mean) should have a say in.
Generally speaking though, wikipedia does not want to support the majority view of anyone, but explain all views proportionally as represented in reliable secondary sources. Of course that can be difficult at times.
> For example, there exist certain species of birds native to the island of Taiwan. Wikipedia can be a great source of information about those birds. It doesn't need to define what type of political entity Taiwan is in order to deliver great information about those birds; as far as the birds are concerned it's just a huge island.
Well yes, but nobody is really fighting about the bird articles