Wikipedia talk:New proposal for alternative analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm quite sure I don't understand much of what you have written here, as in it is as clear as mud, but what I can make out I oppose, from the first word which refers to Wikipedia as "Wiki", and forward. "The preferred format for articles is short and concise." No it is not. You might wish to look at WP:FA to see the format of what we consider our best articles. "Original thought is barred": Yes, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—by definition a tertiary source, not a primary or secondary source, nor a blog. "Alternative analysis and new ideas should be allowed on every page if nothing more than a link to the subject titled with the prefixed." Again, this is an encyclopedia.

"Provide the dominate view first, then link to pages which are truly analytical so that people can be made aware of alternative views." NPOV already means that articles should explore all sides of all subjects. What we are concerned with is facts, not opinion. I agree that NPOV can be difficult. You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and have articles be nothing but opinion pieces. I really don't understand how doing so helps the apparent goal you have stated of having some sort of "true NPOV." It sounds more like you are envisioning some sort of giant chaotic blog. It might have behooved you to explore the site for a bit more than your eight edits suggest before suggesting a massive revamping in a policy proposal. This should be rejected out of hand and soon pursuant to WP:SNOW--Fuhghettaboutit 02:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This proposal seems to be a blatant violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Nice try, though. But Wikipedia isn't the place to analyze people's theories, no matter how right or wrong they may be. Fagstein 08:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Response to Dont Get it

For someone who does not understand what I am proposing you sure have allot of comments.

So far all of the critique I get on my submissions starts with "his rather long..." so this may be the view of self-appointed NPOV police not WP. I am glad to hear that.

It is more than an encyclopedia. Why it simply must be a regurgitation of tertiary sources I have no idea. Again my proposal as you quoted was to maintain primary articles by the rules as they stand, but to add analytical, not opinion, sources under links so that they are not added to the original article.

To throw the baby out with the bath-water would mean that the original article would allow opinion - this is not what I said and you quoted that. I mean keep WP policies as they are for original titles. Then allow educated analysis which is also strictly rule based. It must be logical analysis not opinion. There is a difference and it may be that this difference is not clear to you. Analysis pages would actually have a much higher standard than the original article since if it is the author pointing out the failures in logic and reasoning of the tertiary sources then it must be credible analytical thinking which starts with a premise and supports that premise with a process of logical syllogism(s).

This may be simply pointing out facts of which the reader may not be aware and how those facts may effect certain ‘views’ of the original tertiary source.

I want to give you an example for you to analyze. Here is some of the original text of Gullivers Travels:

“Soon after my return from Leyden, I was recommended by my good master, Mr. Bates, to be surgeon to the Swallow, Captain Abraham Pannel, commander; with whom I continued three years and a half, making a voyage or two into the Levant, and some other parts. When I came back I resolved to settle in London; to which Mr. Bates, my master, encouraged me, and by him I was recommended to several patients. I took part of a small house in the Old Jewry; and being advised to alter my condition, I married Mrs. Mary Burton, second daughter to Mr. Edmund Burton, hosier, in Newgate-street, with whom I received four hundred pounds for a portion.

But my good master Bates dying in two years after, and I having few friends, my business began to fail; for my conscience would not suffer me to imitate the bad practice of too many among my brethren...”

Compare this to the “encyclopedic” entry in [Gulliver's Travels] at the section “Part 1: A voyage Littliput”.

None of the interpretations of Gullivers travels actually capture the essence of what he was trying to say about what happens to an individual who rejects the status quo of life - one who puts himself outside those things we take for granted about life. There are unspoken rules of life which cause great persecution if someone begins to speak. To say that the emperor has no clothes can make you a hero or a goat - but mostly a goat.

The article on Gulliver touches upon writing which offends a class of powerful people who have become entrenched and how they stifle those who would expose this.

There are logical analytical views of Machiavelli which when the facts of his life are assembled under a certain premise one comes to a much more reliable conclusion.

There is a deeper politic and culture in life which tertiary sources have learned by their ascendancy to avoid illuminating.

My proposal is to allow credible, linked articles, of the same subject which perform this desperately needed task.

This does not make WP a blog, or a forum, but accommodates the need to provide alternative analysis by responsible authors who are in the know and willing to risk the virulent opposition they will face when speaking the truth.

As far as I can make out the intent of this proposal, I agree with Fagstein. And, avoid instruction creep! -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Author is a creep since I do not agree with him

See Response to Blantant Violator

<prescriptive note>Adding in section titles for others' posts, especially with the skew you have imposed, is simply innappropriate. By the way, the word is blatant. No one called you a creep. The post refers to instruction creep. And once again, please sign your posts at the end by typing four tildes—like this: ~~~~—this will automatically add you name as a formatted link and a time stamp to your post.</prescriptive note>--Fuhghettaboutit 00:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blantant Violator

This proposal seems to be a blatant violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Nice try, though. But Wikipedia isn't the place to analyze people's theories, no matter how right or wrong they may be. Fagstein 08:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologized to the original author on my page. Obviously I mistook the work creep.
I will not re-title others posts.

--Jb2ndr 19:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Blantant Violator

You contributions and comment justify my points. Anyone who attempts to disagree gets virulent attacks. It like a little boys club, who after building their little tree fort have decided to disallow girls and fags (girls have cooties and fags means anyone who is not as cool as us and does not agree with us.)

Yet not a single responsible view on what I actually said. You hear what you want to hear, you subscribe to the rules you agree with, and ignore those you do not - to wit WP should be free and open and please be bold.

Also this is the most astounding comment "no matter how right or wrong they may be". Wow.

But this is the caliber of commentary when one aspires to such goals. Don’t worry I am not offended since I am well experienced in the art of dealing with the Lilliput’s.

Your inability to understand the purpose of the project, what the basis for No Original Research and WP:ENC ingeneral are, and referring to your detractors in belittling ways, are not helping your case. I would like to see this moved further to your userspace, but at the least you should expect this proposal to be rejected by the community in short order unless you can show the pressing need for your reforms. -- nae'blis 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nae'blis. I would add that for probably 99.5% of Wikipedia articles, your "Alternative analysis" section would consist of 100% kookery. It is not a purpose of the project to present every point of view on every subject. Kookery gets deleted here, and ought to. Tempshill 16:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely with the two editors above. If your proposal is enacted, it would result in the present articles being drowned out by an effectively infinite number of kooky "alternative" viewpoints, who would be able to cite policy not only to bless their text dumps, but to justify ownership of the POV sections therein (since the original kook would be the sole judge of what the article content should be, they could justify removing whatever edits they wanted, claiming them to be outside the scope of the article). Moreover, there are some topics, such as Balkan ethnic controversies, where editors would likely use this policy to engage in edit wars over which viewpoint was the "alternative" one. If there's a genuine debate over some part of a topic (e.g., the rolling debate in the scientific community over whether pandas are or are not bears) then the difference of opinion can easily be mentioned in the main article (as it is for panda).
It has already been mentioned, but I will mention again, that you do yourself and your proposal no good by reflexively attacking those who disagree with you. The typical result of such attacks is to focus attention on the attacking behavior, rather than the proposal, which can only have negative results. --Gavia immer 17:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


I did reflexively attack but in all honesty most of the responses have been severe. There is an entrenchment, a phobia of sorts in that people are rushing to the conclusion that the only way to allow analysis is to turn WP into a blog, or that it must stay an encyclopedia by the consensus definition.
Downie's Dictionary for LTWR 600 definition of Encyclopedia
More in depth study of a person or other topic than a dictionary entry, articles may have attribution and references or be more analytical in the subject-specific works.
No one has asked, how would you allow analysis without turning WP into a blog, and then doing critique of the process. With all due respect I have had only one response that was not a reflexive reaction. --Jb2ndr 19:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "There is a major difference between analysis and opinion."

Of course there is: what I say about something is "analysis". On the other hand, what you say about it (If I disagree with you) is "opinion".

No way you can make this distinction successfully. We have a hard enough time getting people to distinguish their POV from facts. Trying to distinguish between different kinds of POV is impossible. Fan-1967 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not true. The only difference between what you are doing now, and allowing a second tier of analysis is that the author's analysis must provide a novel idea supported by facts and citations.
It is not POV to allow original work which is properly documented and logical. Because one analysis counters another does not mean that it is opinion. It often does since it means that one or both authors have assembled their facts incorrectly. This often happens when their facts are arranged to support the premise, when the facts should create the premise.--Jb2ndr 19:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is only one of Wikipededia's policies. As is very clearly stated in that policy, NPOV cannot be discussed in isolation from Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies, both of which are would be violated by your proposal. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to support all the criticism of this policy that has been expressed above. I'd further like to say, with apologies if this comes across too harshly, that if your edits to Fourth Amendment are any indication of what you would like to see Wikipedia turned into, this whole project would become nothing but a chaotic exercise in uneducated rambling. Your essay displays very little knowledge or understanding of the Amendment, and you've leaped to conclusions that, had you researched this further, you would learn are completely unsupported by history and case law. I won't say your writing, if rephrased clearly as opinion rather than assertions of fact, couldn't be interesting as a reflection on what the words could mean stripped of history and context, but it's simply not a factual analysis. I think you're really looking to start a blog, not to write an encyclopedia. Postdlf 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not harsh you just disagree. It is case law over time that has degraded the notion. It is case law and statutory law that has degraded the notion that the government cannot keep secrets from the public when those secrets violate constitutional rights. The historical development of these interpretations and their current implementation are what are novel.
I do not want WP turned into a forum for opinions I would like to see some way of creating a two tier process - one as an encyclopedia and one as a secondary source for responsible analysis. No one out here seems to know what analysis is. I suggested on the talk page of the article that you avail yourself of an actual appeal brief and study the rules of construction. Papers that are submitted to scientific journals are analysis and have rules of construction. So if someone wants to link the original article to an analytical essay why not? I do not see how creating a lower tier which allows analysis to be accessed only from the page of the original article turns WP into something else.
You allow one initial essay under one premise and one response. That's it. The premise may not go to any one side but must show that both sides are missing something. My analysis did just this. It attempted to show that privacy is a constitutional right for those that doubt it is, and I showed that it is inherent not implied for those who believe in a privacy right.
In the case of judicial activism you could require that I invite the Florida Bar to respond. In this way you provide a secondary tier as a secondary source which can be reviewed for authors whose analysis goes against the grain of an entrenched profession or group of thought leaders. People who pose opinions like many of mine, which are of the "naked emperor" variety cannot get published in journals. Not because of the facts and truth of the matter but because the truth offends the powers that be or, again, threatens their pocketbooks.
If it is kooky then delete it. If it is rant or political delete it. If it is responsible analysis by someone who seems to raise a novel point why would you not allow your readers to avail themselves of new ideas?

--Jb2ndr 19:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is going to do the work of reviewing hundreds of opinion pieces a day that would flow in under this proposal? Just monitoring the existing articles we have for verifiability and factuality and impartiality is an unending job for existing Wikipedia editors. Now you want everyone and their brother to start posting opinion pieces here and have them reviewed to see if they're acceptable opinions? It's not remotely workable. Fan-1967 19:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is a major difference

Again, I do not know what you mean by facts. History is constantly being re-evaluated and we find that once what we thought we believed was not true. It was the opinion of the cited authors and their bias.

I can make the distinction between logical analysis and rant opinion. If you cannot make the distinction between analysis and opinion then how can you say that any article does not have a point of view? Everything of a subjective nature written out here is someone's opinion.

When I go to do research on something I depend on WP to give me historical insight and the current state of the art thinking on the subject. This I do not want to change and I say this in every response I make. But some issues have credible opposing views which reflect reality much more than the state of the art thinking.

As to the assertions of my analysis of the fourth amendment the idea was to strip it of historical developments subsequent to its original intent. The analysis based on the wording was to show that privacy is not implied but inherent in the fourth amendment. This was the premise. The premise was followed by syllogism - A + B if true equals C.

Look also at the analysis of judicial activism. The original author cannot strip it of POV since there are so many interpretations of Judicial activism. Each and every opinion is opposed by one or many people who want to cite the article to death. In other words - force the author either to cite it so to come into compliance with their view or set the bar so high the article never sheds the POV label.

An opinion has certain characteristics that analysis does not. Most often it is a statement of personal cause and effect. “This subject has effected me or my class of people this way thus I believe it is wrong/right”. Opinion is emotional and devoid of insight. Opinion is not centered it espouses one side or the other.

Analysis points out key ideas that are missing from a subject which change the nature of the subject generally - not from one side or the other. Analysis can expose suppressed ideas, what you call “original thinking” which indicate that a controversy is actually supporting a status quo and that there is no controversy at all.

In physics it is well known that the Lorentz Equations can be written in the exact same way yet two results occur - one that supports relativity and one that supports classical mechanics. The math can be shown in a logical analysis yet this cannot be openly exposed by professionals in the field. Notice I did not say what this means I simply stated that it is so. But the world is littered with lost careers by those who insisted that this be recognized openly.

Your opinions on my proposal are good examples of how opinion operates. I am trying to find some middle ground where suppressed ideas or more reliable analysis can be had without making WP a blog. But every critique made of this proposal attacks it by reforming the argument so to justify the critique.

Take out an old logic book from college and read it. Try to think of the things in your profession which are unspoken rules. If you are an attorney think of all of the ways the law is manipulated to insure profit. I read many articles on legal theories which if they pointed out that certain aspects of the issue enhance the profitability of law then I would get POV’d to death. Yet cite me one article from one legal expert which exposes the fact that lawyers are “automatic” officers of the court and what this means for them and the separation of powers. Just one. If you are a lawyer you know this is not in your best interest to do so and if you are not a lawyer you will not find one.

A dramatically novel idea supported by facts, not necessarily citations, which goes against the grain of all or most of conventional thinking credibly analytically presented should be allowed. An opposing article should be allowed and that ends the subject. A one shot pro-con and that is all. If it becomes a never ending diatribe then it is not strong enough to be considered analytical and should be zapped.

All I am asking is to find some method to expand WP so that it lives up to what the Internet provides. Create a committee that establishes rules on what alternative analysis is and the rules by which it can be allowed. There must be people out here who are educated and experienced in the art of philosophy and logic and understand when an alternative is truely unbiased and when it is opinion.

What I find really sad is that knowingly or unknowingly you are playing into the hands of thought police who do not want certian aspects of our lives exposed. It effects their power and their pocketbook - maybe your power and your pocket book.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jb2ndr (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a research forum. There are plenty of places out there to publish original ideas (from peer reviewed journals to Geocities), but an encyclopaedia is not one of them. An encyclopaedia is supposed to reflect and reprint the research of others, not conduct its own. --Daduzi talk 13:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There are tons of places for analysis, opinions, theories, etc. This just isn't one of them, and the proposal goes against what Wikipedia's mission is. When people come here looking for information about something (the Fourth Amendment, for example), they're looking for facts and history, not the opinions of some person who decided to use the Wikipedia article as a forum. Fan-1967 14:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not set up or "ready" to do what you're asking; our mission is verifiability, not truth. It's a hard concept to see at first, but you have to accept that it's not negotiable here, as it defines the project itself. Take that away, and you don't have Wikipedia. If you want to publish your own opinions on things, it'll have to be somewhere else. -- nae'blis 16:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reject?

As already mentioned above this proposal (for what experienced editors undertand of it) would be a Wikipedia:No original research liability, further it also goes against following policies and guidelines:

As far as I'm concerned this should be marked "rejected" ASAP. If it were only rulecruft, I'd be happy to give it some more time to see whether something would come out of it. But it sort of creates false impressions regarding core content policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, which I'd avoid.

No offense intended. Last year at Wikimania Jimbo pleaded for a rapprochement with the Spanish fork (supporting personal essays in a separate namespace). But at English Wikipedia the core content policies (WP:V + WP:NPOV + WP:NOR + WP:NOT) are seen as a whole, not allowing personal or "single slant" essays. --Francis Schonken 08:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This should be prod'ded, or at the very least put up in MfD. Danny Lilithborne 08:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • While some proposals are kept for historical reasons, marked as rejected, I also think that this should be taken to MFD, with this talk page flagged to show not one person indicating a shred of support.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed --Daduzi talk 14:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Postdlf 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Rasputinize (poison, stab, strangle, etc.) this. Fan-1967 16:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Weak agreement for MfDing it - I don't want to get a backwater decision on destroying someone's attempt to help the project, and maybe the consensus will be to userfy/mark rejected as an example to others. -- nae'blis 16:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Is there a place to archive rejected proposals? If not, should there be? Fan-1967 16:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
          • We could always userfy it. Postdlf 18:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Agree with the suggestion to MfD it. We shouldn't keep proposed policies that are not in force, especially if they conflict with core policies that are in force. --Gavia immer 17:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
        • There isn't an archive per se, but rejected proposals are placed in Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals. On second thought, I'm now not so sure mfd is necessary. We certainly seem to have consensus for rejection. Maybe this should be kept, as rejected, as precedent.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Works for me. I'm content to see it marked rejected. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Done. -- nae'blis 17:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)