Help talk:Introduction to policies and guidelines/1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:32, 30 January 2022

Revision as of 23:26, 11 July 2022

Line 47:

Wouldn't it preferable to include some sort of stat for "to a degree unprecedented in American politics", otherwise wouldn't it present a similar problem as with calling the Yankees one of the greatest teams of all times - where the model example includes stats for teams won and how it's 3x more than any other team.

[[User:Swil999|Swil999]] ([[User talk:Swil999|talk]]) 01:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

== Reordering and tweaking of these examples ==

I think some of these examples should be reordered and/or tweaked. Mainly, I feel as though the examples focus a bit too much on turns of phrase. It feels closer to a [[MOS:WTW]] quiz rather than a [[WP:NPOV]] quiz. I think the examples such as on Michael Phelps or the Holocaust are the clearer and cleaner ways of getting the idea across. Considering that this page is meant for beginners, and that some people learn by example, I think it's a good idea to make the examples more intuitive (without compromising on coverage of the [[WP:NPOV]] idea). Perhaps it would even be a good idea to split the page into two columns, with a bad phrasing on the left column and a [[WP:NPOV]]-compliant phrasing in the right column.

Examples I think should be emphasized/moved up/expanded/added:

* Michael Phelps. Honestly I think this one should be moved to first. It's a very clear and direct way of getting across the idea that [[WP:NPOV]] isn't just about saying what's verifiably true, it's about a neutral presentation of that information. [[WP:DUE]] is one of the more common applications of [[WP:NPOV]], we should spend way more than one example on it <small>(ironically, it isn't getting [[WP:DUE]] weight)</small>

* Scientific fact. Vaccines is the current one, but I think one on flat earth might be a good idea too. For example, consider something like {{tqq|'''Earth''' is the third [[planet]] from the [[Sun]] and the only [[astronomical object]] known to harbor [[life]]. While many people [[Spherical Earth|think that the Earth is spherical]], more and more people [[Modern flat Earth beliefs|are coming to agree that the Earth is actually flat]].}} and then something like {{tqq|Not neutral. This is an example of [[WP:FALSEBALANCE|false balance]]. This sentence is true ([[modern flat Earth beliefs]] are indeed growing), but this phrasing is highly misleading as it leads the reader to think that there is substantive disagreement about the shape of the Earth. In reality, [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] have an overwhelming consensus on the shape of the Earth, to the point where the spherical Earth perspective is treated by Wikipedia as fact, and the flat Earth perspective is considered [[WP:FRINGE]], meaning it need not be mentioned.}}

* Historical fact. The Holocaust is a fine one. It's a very sensitive subject which has upsides and downsides, an easy alternative might be [[moon landing denial]], but I don't feel strongly.

* Fringe in general. The Holocaust or flat earth are some examples, but it might be a good idea to consider other cases where a fringe belief should not be mentioned at all, outside of pseudoscience.

* Cats. It's a good example of how we talk about movies through the voice of critics. Might be good to include a contrasting bad example of how not to.

Examples I think should be deemphasized/moved lower/merged/tweaked:

* Facebook. Not much wrong with it, I just don't think it teaches the reader anything. It too could be improved if it demonstrated a constrasting example of an incorrect phrasing, though.

* Trump. I'm not sure it does a good job of demonstrating what it tries to (its answer says, {{tqq|even when it differs from a view held by a large portion of the general public}}). I think there could be better examples of "counterintuitive truths" that get the idea across without the political baggage and connotations of Trump, we could just take something from [[list of common misconceptions]].

* Yankees and Shakespeare. For the average reader, {{tqq|is one of the greatest}} probably reads about the same as {{tqq|is widely considered to be one of the greatest}}. These examples should definitely be merged, that would get across this slightly unintuitive difference in phrasing.

* Mao and Diana. {{tqq|cruel disregard}} and {{tqq|tragic}} are similar to the Yankees and Shakespeare example, but the quiz suggests that instead of saying it in "critic voice" or "widely considered voice", the sentence should just be rephrased. One might ask: why can we say that Shakespeare is {{tqq|widely considered one of the greatest}} but not that Diana's death was {{tqq|widely considered to be tragic}}. It would be better to make clear if/when/why it's appropriate and [[WP:NPOV]] to use the abstraction of "widely considered".

But before I do anything I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on this! [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 23:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)