Way to settle controversies in Wikipedia (1 Viewer)

[oliveryty]

It was said, consense is difficult to be made among the Wikipedia Chinese editors community, because they come from diifferent regions: mainland China, Taiwan, Hongkong, and Singapore, and even Malaysia, with quite different cultural and especially ideological background. Quarrels always break out among them, especially between those from mainland China and Taiwan. Sometimes, these quarrels even get the top figure of Wikipedia involved. Some quarrelsome editors was banned permanently.


I don't think it's a good idea. Why to cover up or avoid controversies? Debate, vote, then list the majority opinion first, followed with minority opinion and especially the opponent opinion, just like what the US courts of justice do. Isn't it a better idea?

I am not a regular Wikipedia editor, but I am a regular Wikipedia reader. What I want from Wikipedia. is not a seemingly neutral record, if it possible, I prefer to read mutually controversial opinions in one page, so as to make my own conclusions.

Isn't it the core spirit of the freedom of speech: the free market of ideas?

 

[Robbie Loucks]

Well, I'm glad I don't really care for Asian articles I guess. I like brushing up on philosophical ethics and wars once in a while though.

 

[Wiseone]

Vote on it? As if the truth is determined by what the majority of people think it should be

 

[oliveryty]

Vote on it? As if the truth is determined by what the majority of people think it should be

The vote is just show what is majority opinion and what is the minority opinion, and no more. The minority opinions, especially the mostly supported opponent opinion will be listed below.

Besides, poll is a way to make consense. The current Wikipedia editing system has no effective way to settle controversies, and some controversial entries were edited and reedited once and once again, ended up with the troubled administrator shutting it down. This arbitrary way hurts the editors. So, why don't adopt Debate and Vote?

 

[Wiseone]

The vote is just show what is majority opinion and what is the minority opinion, and no more. The minority opinions, especially the mostly supported opponent opinion will be listed below.

Besides, poll is a way to make consense. The current Wikipedia editing system has no effective way to settle controversies, and some controversial entries were edited and reedited once and once again, ended up with the troubled administrator shutting it down. This arbitrary way hurts the editors. So, why don't adopt Debate and Vote?

Because sometimes the majority is factually wrong and that should be on wikipedia.

 

[oliveryty]

Because sometimes the majority is factually wrong and that should be on wikipedia.

In my way, the minority/opponent opinion(s) is/are also listed. So the potential right one is not covered up.

 

[Wiseone]

In my way, the minority/opponent opinion(s) is/are also listed. So the potential right one is not covered up.

The correct one should be displayed first and most prominently and any incorrect opinions should be listed separately.

 

[oliveryty]

The correct one should be displayed first and most prominently and any incorrect opinions should be listed separately.

How do you determine which opinion is the Correct one?

 

[Wiseone]

How do you determine which opinion is the Correct one?

Look if you want to make an article about whether Crimea belongs to Russia or not, you're already going down the wrong place since there's no consensus and both views need to be represented with the relevant facts. Now if you wanted to deny the Holocaust or the Nanjing Massacre then you really shouldn't be on wikipedia at all.

There's no perfect system but a authoritarian system of unbiased review is better than voting.

 

[oliveryty]

Look if you want to make an article about whether Crimea belongs to Russia or not, you're already going down the wrong place since there's no consensus and both views need to be represented with the relevant facts. Now if you wanted to deny the Holocaust or the Nanjing Massacre then you really shouldn't be on wikipedia at all.

There's no perfect system but a authoritarian system of unbiased review is better than voting.

Authoritarian system of unbiased review? Are there any one? The CPC?

The Crimea topic is not relevant to this topic. I am not denying Nanjing Massacre. I am talking about a dispute-settling procedure.

Can you distinguish what is procedural and what is substantial?

How do you determine your "authoritarian" reviewer is unbiased? Does the CPC tolerate the opinions unapproval to itself?

 

[oliveryty]

Look if you want to make an article about whether Crimea belongs to Russia or not, you're already going down the wrong place since there's no consensus and both views need to be represented with the relevant facts. Now if you wanted to deny the Holocaust or the Nanjing Massacre then you really shouldn't be on wikipedia at all.

There's no perfect system but a authoritarian system of unbiased review is better than voting.

Controversial topics should not be displayed on wikipedia?

Dont ask, dont tell?

In my opinion, controversial topics should be discussed Once and Once Again until Consense be concluded. That's the Freedom of Speech be established for.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Controversial topics should not be displayed on wikipedia?

Dont ask, dont tell?

In my opinion, controversial topics should be discussed Once and Once Again until Consense be concluded. That's the Freedom of Speech be established for.

What is the value of consensus?

 

[American]

Controversial topics should not be displayed on wikipedia?

Dont ask, dont tell?

In my opinion, controversial topics should be discussed Once and Once Again until Consense be concluded. That's the Freedom of Speech be established for.

Why you digging up this old thread and talking to a banned member? :lol:

 

[oliveryty]

Why you digging up this old thread and talking to a banned member? :lol:

I didn't notice that.

 

[oliveryty]

What is the value of consensus?

Consensus is the base of collective actions. And it is the good feeling to know you are one of a group of people.

For mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, consensus means we can stay together in peace.

 

[KevinKohler]

It was said, consense is difficult to be made among the Wikipedia Chinese editors community, because they come from diifferent regions: mainland China, Taiwan, Hongkong, and Singapore, and even Malaysia, with quite different cultural and especially ideological background. Quarrels always break out among them, especially between those from mainland China and Taiwan. Sometimes, these quarrels even get the top figure of Wikipedia involved. Some quarrelsome editors was banned permanently.


I don't think it's a good idea. Why to cover up or avoid controversies? Debate, vote, then list the majority opinion first, followed with minority opinion and especially the opponent opinion, just like what the US courts of justice do. Isn't it a better idea?

I am not a regular Wikipedia editor, but I am a regular Wikipedia reader. What I want from Wikipedia. is not a seemingly neutral record, if it possible, I prefer to read mutually controversial opinions in one page, so as to make my own conclusions.

Isn't it the core spirit of the freedom of speech: the free market of ideas?

Consensus =/= truth.

 

[oliveryty]

What is the value of consensus?

Without consensus the USA can't be established and became a democracy. Without consensus, chaos, failure and jungle rules govern a country.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Consensus is the base of collective actions. And it is the good feeling to know you are one of a group of people.

For mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, consensus means we can stay together in peace.

Without consensus the USA can't be established and became a democracy. Without consensus, chaos, failure and jungle rules govern a country.

Wikipedia is the supposed to present facts.

Consensus lends nothing to the truth of facts. The only value consensus has at all relates to the nature of scientific inquiry, and even then, that only works due to the purported unbiased approach inherent to "good" science. Politics and personal beefs manage to make their way around the scientific method and into scientific consensus from time to time. So, when you remove such methods from your inquiry and decide to pin your "facts" on popular opinion, well, that's just the worst kind of wrong you can be.

 

[DDD]

Wikipedia is the supposed to present facts.

Consensus lends nothing to the truth of facts. The only value consensus has at all relates to the nature of scientific inquiry, and even then, that only works due to the purported unbiased approach inherent to "good" science. Politics and personal beefs manage to make their way around the scientific method and into scientific consensus from time to time. So, when you remove such methods from your inquiry and decide to pin your "facts" on popular opinion, well, that's just the worst kind of wrong you can be.

This is why I do not use Weak-O-Pedia as a reference.

 

[DDD]

Wikipedia is the supposed to present facts.

Consensus lends nothing to the truth of facts. The only value consensus has at all relates to the nature of scientific inquiry, and even then, that only works due to the purported unbiased approach inherent to "good" science. Politics and personal beefs manage to make their way around the scientific method and into scientific consensus from time to time. So, when you remove such methods from your inquiry and decide to pin your "facts" on popular opinion, well, that's just the worst kind of wrong you can be.

This is why I do not use Weak-O-Pedia as a reference.