Limitations of Wiki News' Neutral Point of View Policy
Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales was at the Harvard Blogging Conference this weekend, and he spoke about the Neutral Point of View Policy (aka NPOV) and how it might apply to Wiki News.
Wales said that the NPOV policy works best as a means to get a lot of people to collaborate and synthesize news from other primary news sources, but that it would be probably difficult for WikiNews to do much original reporting. They have high standards of neutrality and verifiability, and they also don't accept original reporting unless it is from a known and trusted wikipedian.
The NPOV philosophy seems to work well for historic topics where there is time for long deliberations over controversial issues, but coming to a quick consensus of neutrality in day-to-day news coverage could potentially water down the news. Wales made the comment that 'if you want your writing to survive, you have to write in a fairly neutral manner.' (rough paraphrase)
I was curious to hear Wales speak about his neutrality philosophy because I am interested in creating a collaborative community of volunteers to help with my documentary on a controversial subject -- the pre-war performance of the television news media. After hearing more about "NPOV," it has a lot of theoretical potential but it has too many flaws for any practical application for my open-source documentary.
BALANCE WITHOUT TRUTH
Wikipedia's explanation of NPOV says:
- The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.
In this context, being "neutral" means giving equal weight to all points of view even when the facts could clearly show that one side is completely wrong.
Chris Hedges illustrates the problem of this type of extremist "He Said / She Said" mentality, "Balance and objectivity, without a strong commitment to the truth, can turn journalism into farce." (via Romenesko)
CULTURAL PERCEPTIONS
Conservative blogger Roger Simon questions Wales' philosophy, "But how does he preserve this neutrality and who defines it?"
Wikipedia's king of neutrality is the intersubjectivity of popular culture as Wales explains:
Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view."
Wikipedia can be an excellent cultural litmus test to give an overview of what people "know" or "think they know" about a huge number of different topics -- But it's certainly not a reliable resource for serious Academic research for the objective "reality-based community."
Wikipedia should be nothing more than a tentative explanation and a springboard for further academic investigation -- at least at this point in development.
NPOV PITFALLS FOR JOURNALISM
One potential pitfall of wikipedia's NPOV philosophy is that the goal of neutrality makes it very difficult to write articles that make politically contentious fact-based conclusions.
Wikipedian John Kenney makes the following observation while watching an editing debate over Liberal Bias
"God, these articles on controversial topics that devolve into a polemical essay by one side, followed by a refuting polemical essay by the other side, are tiresome."
Wikipedia explains that "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree."
But a counter-point from Hedges would be that "Balance and objectivity have become code words to propagate the insidious and cynical moral disengagement that is destroying American journalism."
If a NPOV philosophy is unwilling to "adjudicate factual disputes," then it only seems to be raising the amount of informational uncertainty -- as Jay Rosen would say.
But Rosen holds out hope for what wiki technology could yield for journalism:
"But now knowing a little more about "the Wiki community," I am re-thinking what such a network could do with news...
"The Wiki people are learning how neutrality works when there are "open" conditions, rather than the closed ranks of a profession. They are also learning how to care about the neutral role, and even fight for it. A most unusual development in the life of human passions."
I believe that wiki technology is capable of pooling knowledge like no other collaboration tool currently available to the public -- I just think that there needs to be a different philosophical framework other thatn NPOV that keeps intersubjective perceptions in check with objective facts.
Technorati Tags: webcred
Debatepedia, a solution to Wikipedia NPOV problems
For Immediate Release
The International Debate Education Association Launches Debatepedia.org
Debatepedia calls on citizens to hash-out their own beliefs, values, and stances
as editors on the “Wikipedia of debate”
NEW YORK, NY (October 12, 2007) – The International Debate Education Association (IDEA) announced today its launch of Debatepedia.org, a wiki with the ambitious mission of becoming the world’s "Wikipedia of debate and reason". On Debatepedia, at www.idebate.org, people can help edit and co-create an encyclopedia of debates by adding pro and con arguments and compiling bodies of supporting evidence within a unique pro/con “logic tree” structure. Debatepedia is also a place for documenting the positions of leaders and organizations. The potential range of debates on Debatepedia is limitless and includes topics that are international, national, and local in scope. It also intends to offer different language versions. Its ambitious mission will have a major impact on the way citizens engage in pressing debates, draw personal conclusions, and even influence their representatives and leaders.
Debatepedia is the product of over a year-and-a-half of work by a dedicated team of individuals. It was founded by Georgetown students and alumni in the Winter of 2006, who then outsourced a software project to India in the Spring and Summer of 2007, creating software that enables users to easily use and manipulate the original and essential “logic-tree” pro/con structure of debates. Debatepedia merged with IDEA in the summer of 2007, joining a talented international team, and benefiting from the migration of roughly 500 refined debate articles from IDEA’s existing Debatabase (the product of over 8 years of work). The merger of these teams under the umbrella of IDEA and its network has made the new Debatepedia into a powerful force of effort, vision, and potential.
With Debatepedia’s launch, the focus moves to building a vibrant wiki community of volunteer editors. Like Wikipedia, such a community is fundamental to its mission. Debatepedia’s launch is a call to debaters, students, experts, and citizens to register on Debatepedia and become active editors and members of its community. It encourages editors to engage for personal reasons in the issues they care most about, using Debatepedia as a tool to gather and weigh pros and cons, and back up the positions they take. For debaters, its the ultimate forum for gathering and depositing evidence.
Debatepedia founder and chief editor Brooks Lindsay says, “I am incredibly lucky to be the chief editor of Debatepedia because the process and structure pushes me to read widely on the most important issues of the day, inquire in areas of uncertainty, gather and organize arguments, deliberate on them, and determine where I stand. It’s the ultimate personal philosophical tool, and a great tool for debaters.”
In the coming year, Debatepedia’s focus is squarely on the hottest debates in the world today. For those living in or interested in the United States, it will be featuring roughly 50 essential debates that surround the 2008 US presidential and congressional elections.
Press Contact:
Brooks Lindsay
Founder and chief editor of Debatepedia, President of Debatemedia, Inc.
(Phone) 206-406-7558, (Email) brooks@debatepedia.org.
Based in Washington, DC.