Wikipedia talk:Neutrality Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project.

Please sign your comments using four tilda (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.
Contents
Pages Requiring Attention · Project Discussion · Project Disputes
Please Remember
Pages Currently under Watch

Welcome to the Wikipedia Neutrality Project talk page.
Please remember that talk pages are not discussion boards - please only reply to relevant issues posted here, and only post articles which require the attention of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project.

Contents

[edit] Announcements

I will be inactive indefinetely and will be unable to manage this project. If Katherine, CP/M, or another interested third part feels interested, please feel free to participate as a leader in my absensce. -- Wizardry Dragon 22:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Discussion

This section is to discuss the goals, scope, and other topics directly related to the Wikipedia Neutrality project. If you have a dispute with the Wikipedia Neutrality project's practices, please post in the appropriate section below. If you wish to contest a NPOV warning or watch placed on an article, please state your case in the appropriate article subheading above.


I'm not sure I understand your purpose exactly. Isn't the whole of Wikipedia a sort of "Neutrality Project"? Isn't it the purpose of every editor to remove bias from Wikipedia? I'm a bit confused as to what you plan to do that is different from a decentralized base of editors. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 00:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the question. Yes, surely, neutrality is policy, and every editor should follow it. However, in reality many editors just can't follow it, having their own point of view and believing it to be true. The editor with other POV might never come (or have time for disputes), and, even if he does, it may yield no results. A third party, with no prejudices on the subject, is the most effective way to resolve such problems.
So, the Neurtality Project would be a team to look at articles from aside, help editors to find the neutral grounds, and, if need arises, focus on an article. And, of course, to encourage and help other editors to maintain NPOV. --CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:30 and WP:RFC. I'm not sure what makes fives editors more capable of being neutral than others. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know about 3O and RfC. However, there's some difference - they simply give opinions about a certain issue, which can reaffirm one of the editors, which isn't always enough in case of POV problems. WNP, besides just reviewing, works in style similar to other Wikiprojects - focusing on a specific issue, discussing it on article's talk page, and taking part in correction. It's a way to draw some attention to the neutrality of the article, and not only get comments.
About someone being more or less neutral - I in no way assume that. We're equal to other editors and don't enforce anything. However, in case of any specific issue an outside view is usually helpful, be it RfC, MedCab or WNP. We are not going to replace them, just have less focus on personalities and more on the article, and offer more collaboration when it's needed. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 15:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose... but I'm still a bit skeptical. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review of our means

It seems that the wikiproject became inactive, since the original creator disappeared, and I'll work to revive it, In my opinion, it lacks defined goals and procedures. I have some views on how this project can function, which would require some changes in means, while the goals stay the same. It might be a good idea for our rules, if we accept it. I write it mostly in present tense, to make it easier to understand, and easier to correct, because these rules are going to give an impression of WNP for everyone. In fact this is a restart, but the ideas are the same.

Specifically, I suggest the following types of action:

  • Review. Any editor can post a request, creating an appropriate section, and the article will be reviewed by one or more of our members, making suggestions on what should be changed, or just changing that in simple cases.
  • Watch. Articles with frequently appearing significant bias can be added on a collective watchlist, which is checked by our members time to time.
  • Assessment. We will discuss and suggest whether a POV template should be placed or removed on a specific article. This is what's really needed, since there's no procedure for this, and many editors hesitate to make such changes alone.
  • Dispute resolution. We will provide quick suggestions for resolution of NPOV disputes in cases where there is no personal conflict, but just contradicting views on a subject. In case different kind of help is required, we'll recommend the appropriate group and help to make the request.
  • Correction. When we find an article with significant POV issues, we'll repair it, neutralizing biased statements, replacing speculations with reliable information, checking for adequate representation of different views, and ensuring article no longer has a general bias.

Well, all of this is for now a proposal: something might be added, removed or changed. If you have suggestions, please comment.


For more difficult decision making, I suggest the base method is policies-based discussion and consensus. It means that we don't just vote, but state reasons for the suggestions and discuss issues. Members can summarize debates when enough discussion is done and suggest either the commonly accepted or a compromise decision. In case of no controversy, the common decision is accepted without further discussion. If consensus can't be reached, we can address other groups.

This might seem somewhat formalized, but WNP goals suppose we have a reliable and quick way of making decisions.


Now, about what we are not. In a nutshell, we are not a replacement for something already existing; specifically,

  • WNP is not exactly requests for comments, or RfC page. We won't deal with personalities, but only with actions. We won't just comment, but take action to maintain neutrality of pages. That's the main difference - WNP is aimed for more active help.
  • WNP is not mediation. Sometimes our role will intersect with Mediation Cabal, and we'll forward inter-user problems to MedCab, and assist in neutrality-related cases. We might have common members and work together on some cases, but via WNP we both find and implement solutions.
  • Finally, we are not fanatics. Neutrality is important as it improves the quality of articles, but we should never discard other factors. Our final goal is not to make a few articles absolutely neutral, but rather to ensure all Wikipedia is sufficiently neutral. We follow the idea rather than the letter, and address articles where NPOV is violated with significant effect on the article.

Concerning the last, an article can leave positive or negative impression of a subject, but this impression should be caused by the subject itself, not the editors. Negative bias requires more attention than positive, and we won't block improvement of an article if it makes it slightly less neutral, but will rather correct it, and will address editors if the bias seems intentional.

This all is yet a proposal. Plese make suggestions, post objections, and discuss the principle and details.

CP/M 21:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's see what you can do. :) I've got a medcab case which seems to be rather a mess, and would like some outside opinions on it. Reply on my logged-in talkpage if you would. The case is 2006-06-13 Conservatism, and all sides of the mediation (including the mediator) would be happy to see the case resolved. Good luck? (Kylu@Work) 207.145.133.34 22:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll help as much as I can, and take full part in the mediation. I might be more direct when addressing the sides, but I feel it would be better. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Where I'm rather inactive in the project itself, I can probably pitch in a bit more on the assessment processes. - Wizardry Dragon 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
So you're back! I already thought you've left. Could you comment on my suggestions? CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been around, I just haven't had much time and as thus hsave been focussing more on simply editing pages myself than working on the WNP to coordinate editing. As I said on my talk page in reply to your message, I appreciate your initiative in working on the WNP, and thusfar it looks pretty good. Keep it up! - Wizardry Dragon 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Closing" Page Requests

Currently, a lot of otherwise fixed issues in the Pages for Review section. I propose that when a page has received input from one of the WNP members, that one (or more) designated "clerks" see if the article has been cleaned up, and if so, archive the request, and if not, press for further actions. Thoughts? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Disputes

If you have any disputes with the Wikipedia Neutrality Project's practices, please post them as a comment under this subheading.

[edit] Ethnic groups

People involved in this project may also want to be aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups. As you might imagine, ethnicity is an area where neutrality issues often arise. - Jmabel | Talk 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. It's definetely a good related link for the WNP. - Wizardry Dragon 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantity / Use of NPOV Tags

I've reviewed a number of articles that have NPOV tags, where the NPOV is very slight, or simply one or perhaps too people objecting to the "concept" of an article or in other cases to what appear to be relatively minor stylastic differences. In other cases the precise rational for the application of the NPOV is unclear or the individual applying it is not longer actively discussing it on the talk page.

What I have also noticed is the NPOV tags are easy to add, but seem to take a lot of effort to remove (ie, no one wants to go ahead and actually remove them). This is understandable because perfect NPOV is hard to achieve, and consenus about it even harder. What is a bit irritating is to stumble across an article with an NPOV tag, review it, and discover the tag was applied for something minor. Just something to perhaps reflect on as efforts are made on which articles to tag. Augustz 07:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Are there project tags (the ones linked to on our article page) which were applied superflouosly? If so, on what articles? I am not quick to tag something myself - before I put it before the WNP I make an effort to fix it myself. Others should do the same. If they aren't, then the tag should be removed until and not posted again until it's clear that one person and the article editors alone aren't going to be able to remove the bias from an article. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/u/Wikipedia_talk%7ENeutrality_Project_bc57.html"