User:Jenhawk777: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

Personally, and as an academic, I agree with the very high priority Wikipedia places on neutrality. In the 6 years I’ve been here, I have learned that my fellow WP editors are just as committed to this standard as I am. They have taught me a few things I would like to record here in honor of them.

They have shown me that for better—and for worse—we are all influenced by our culture, race, nationality, gender, and ethics; our convictions, of all kinds, political and other, influence our thinking; we evaluate current experiences based on past ones, and view the future through knowledge gained from our life experiences, our education, the schools we attended, the professors we had, which ones we liked and those whose respect we coveted.

These form our “horizon” – the “glasses” through which we see and interpret everything we interact with. We are all historically situated. None of us are exempt.

But Wikipedia has also taught me that, while our horizons influence us, they do not necessarily have to prevent neutrality. Historian Thomas L. Haskell explains, “even a polemicist, deeply and fixedly committed” can cultivate neutrality insofar as they are willing to enter in to even a little empathy for the opposing view – or perhaps empathy for neutrality itself. In that empathy, objectivity can be found. And in objectivity there can be neutrality.

Take Olympic judges for example. They must overcome their own biases to be decent judges, and part of that is the presence of the other judges from whom they want the same thing. We all want to be treated with a fair consideration. Acknowledging what you want to get can increase the likelihood of giving it.

Through all the many editors who have supported, instructed, corrected, encouraged and harassed me into being a better editor – here is what this amazing breed of human called Wikipedian’s have taught me.

• It’s impossible to fight what isn’t there, so the first step to overcoming bias is to simply acknowledge it.
• G.K.Chesterton once said, “The nearest we can come to being impartial is to admit to being partial.”
• A good look at what our biases are is a necessary beginning.
• Practical practiced steps are the solution. They are something we do, not something we think or feel. We can choose them.

• The first of those practical steps is to pay attention to method. This is wikipedia’s approach all the way. The guidelines are there.
• Scrupulous attention to the standards and processes of Wikipedia’s just and reasonable method tends to reduce the amount of control an individual’s horizon has over them.

• 1.Begin by researching multiple sources, then Vet your sources. Learn how to recognize if an author neglects facts, fails to acknowledge opposing arguments, or dismisses contradictory studies.

• • I write mostly in the field of Religion which is a polarizing topic for many. I, personally, choose not to quote fundamentalists or most apologists or counter-apologists. They are simply too biased as a rule, and I avoid them. But I also run into Wikipedia editors whose approach to neutrality is to refuse to use any publisher that can be called religious, at all. They assume such publishers must be biased, and so they exclude them completely. Omitting these sources because of who they are, rather than what they do, will skew any text written into genuine inaccuracy, because in fact, the Christian academic publishers are well established as high quality and unbiased, and about half the material in the field is published by them. In this case, a lack of neutrality leads to poor work and inaccuracies.

• 2. Test Yourself by looking for contrary evidence.

• Make sure to include sources that disagree with your own personal POV.
• Check the text you have written for emphasis on sources you “like”, or are most familiar with; look for de-emphasis on views you don’t like.
• Always make it a point to include opposing views. Look for the majority view even when you are part of the minority, and include relevant minority views even if you are part of the majority.

• Use the same standard for all. Don’t cut an author you like slack you would not give to one you don’t like.
• Account for relevant historical bedrock. Some historical and scientific facts are so strongly established they are virtually indisputable. Facts—build on facts—only then include authorial inference and interpretation. This places a check on free “narrative” and “imagination” with OR claiming to be ‘summarization’.

• 4. Consensus hinders bias – allow it.

• Other editors will want to make changes in your text. That’s a good thing.
• Articles on WP are improved every time there is disagreement and consensus is then found – most often resulting in incorporating both views.

• Submit work to the unsympathetic

• They look for issues the sympathetic overlook.
• Peer reviews are worth their weight in gold.
• We are all inclined to dwell on that which agrees with us and skim over…