Jcchat66

Fact and opinion, objective and subjective, points of view

I don't know why you deleted the previous user's comments regarding the socialism article. Maybe you will just delete this too. But in case it matters to you to read it, and because I feel a need to, here it is.

There is a basic lack of understanding on your part about the distinctions and ideas in the subject/headline above, at least as Wikipedia defines them. Here is what I mean (all Wikipedia quotes below are from Wikipedia:Npov).

You: Regardless of Wiki policy, the academic method of debating cannot be overruled.

This misses the point. The important point here is that if something is likely to trigger a debate, it is almost definitely POV.

Wikipedia: Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in.

In other words, how we debate is irrelevant, because if we are debating, something is wrong. Wikipedia is not a place to have a debate, figure out who is the "winner" and then define that person's views as fact. If the arguments you use for an edit sound like the sort of thing that would be written in a book by a prominent speaker in a particular trend of thought, then they do not belong as statements of fact on Wikipedia - although a neutral statement of that thinker's opinion as his opinion, including quotes, does.

You: The status quo (that which is held as factual, such as a theory, but may not have the virtue of absolute fact) does not suffer the burden of proof... just because you cannot find an argument for it, does not automatically disqualify it... One must find facts against it above all else.

Wikipedia policy does not agree.

Wikipedia: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute"... By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute."

If there is a notable pattern of serious dispute in the public dialog of a commonly held belief, then it is an opinion and not a fact by Wikipedia definition. We do not engage in the dispute. We acknowledge that there is a dispute and draw our fact/opinion lines accordingly.

To you, it is a "fact" that it is wrong to steal. Right?

Wikipedia: That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion.

So I think it is clear that what you really have (as you are already close to admitting on your user page) is not a problem with individual users who are violating Wikipedia policy, but a problem with Wikipedia policy. If that is the case, my answer is twofold:

(1) By your own values of respect for property, you must take your efforts elsewhere. The Wikipedia servers are privately owned property and the Wikipedia policies are set in accordance with the desires of the owners.

(2) I think the Wikipedia policies are great, so if you would like to give me a shot at convincing you sometime, let me know.

Here are some rules of thumb (these are mine, not Wikipedia's) for detecting one's own drifting off into POV writing:

• Do you feel righteous or noble while typing?
• Do you feel a profound sense of importance in what you are writing?
• Are you conscious of an especially pronounced need to back up what you are writing with facts?
• Are you using expressions which ask the reader to check and follow a train of logic?
• Are you using expressions which invite the reader to consider the broader implications of what you are writing?
• Does it occur to you that evil or misguided people will want to delete what you are adding?
• Is what you are writing evaluative? Does it compare two things in terms of worth, morality, correctness, or any other standard which cannot be directly measured using scientific instruments?

If the answer to any of these is "yes", you have a red flag indicating that you are probably violating NPOV.

By the way, I would love to debate some of the topics behind all this (property, socialism, stuff like that) some time. My e-mail address is drakedun@immortalcoil.org (yeah, I am aware of the potential that some bot will pick that up... I have it under control). If you send me an email, I will send you mine and also and ID for the online messenger of your choice. Unfortunately, I live in GMT+9, but I keep weird enough hours that there should be some overlap.

Drake Dun 08:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you deleted the previous user's comments regarding the socialism article. Maybe you will just delete this too. But in case it matters to you to read it, and because I feel a need to, here it is.

The reason was already stated. Undue weight. Socialism already has its own article, and is already mentioned elsewhere in this article. A similar issue came up in the past with links to various websites, only about six in all (there are many more now). Five of them were links to articles about property, but only one was to a political-based website on Marxism. Again, undue weight.

There is a basic lack of understanding on your part about the distinctions and ideas in the subject/headline above, at least as Wikipedia defines them. Here is what I mean (all Wikipedia quotes below are from Wikipedia:Npov). You: Regardless of Wiki policy, the academic method of debating cannot be overruled. This misses the point. The important point here is that if something is likely to trigger a debate, it is almost definitely POV.

The discussion page is for debating naturally arising disagreements that are unavoidable, not just POV.

Wikipedia: Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. In other words, how we debate is irrelevant, because if we are debating, something is wrong.

And thus, debating is an attempt to correct that wrong. Many debates arise from misunderstandings, especially in language, when a word means different things to different people because someone failed to pick up a dictionary.

Wikipedia is not a place to have a debate, figure out who is the "winner" and then define that person's views as fact. If the arguments you use for an edit sound like the sort of thing that would be written in a book by a prominent speaker in a particular trend of thought, then they do not belong as statements of fact on Wikipedia - although a neutral statement of that thinker's opinion as his opinion, including quotes, does.

This one makes no sense at all. An opinion is automatically biased, and cannot be neutral. An opinion is always open to dispute, facts are not.

You: The status quo (that which is held as factual, such as a theory, but may not have the virtue of absolute fact) does not suffer the burden of proof... just because you cannot find an argument for it, does not automatically disqualify it... One must find facts against it above all else. Wikipedia policy does not agree.

Too bad. It’s been a tried and tested method for thousands of years. But I welcome a good reason to ignore it!

Wikipedia: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute"... By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute."

Utter nonsense for obvious reasons. There is always serious dispute against facts, like the earth being round, or the earth being the center of the universe are classic examples. Despite it being made fact with proof, it was disputed venomously. Facts are not dictated by disputes or agreement, or there would be no facts at all, for people seldom agree on anything.

If there is a notable pattern of serious dispute in the public dialog of a commonly held belief, then it is an opinion and not a fact by Wikipedia definition. We do not engage in the dispute. We acknowledge that there is a dispute and draw our fact/opinion lines accordingly.

This is a good attempt to get past the issue of so many people that do not understand basic methods of debate. Good luck with that! But I cannot change in my mind the definition of a fact to accommodate Wiki’s definition. This is a deeper problem with people, not Wiki, but so far they do a good job of dealing with it … therefore the guidelines and policies.

To you, it is a "fact" that it is wrong to steal. Right? Wikipedia: That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion.

This is just plain loopy. Didn’t you just state the following “Wikipedia: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" Well? This is a double-edged sword. By agreeing to Wiki on this I am also agreeing that facts are dicated by consent. But this also proves my point … no matter the fact, someone will always find cause to dispute it. We have some serious sophistry going on here now.

So I think it is clear that what you really have (as you are already close to admitting on your user page) is not a problem with individual users who are violating Wikipedia policy, but a problem with Wikipedia policy. If that is the case, my answer is twofold: (1) By your own values of respect for property, you must take your efforts elsewhere.

The paragraph I added in the article does not reflect my personal opinions or values. Again, that was the intent of the paragraph, a universal understanding of a concept that all humans share about property, not a value or a code of ethics.

The Wikipedia servers are privately owned property and the Wikipedia policies are set in accordance with the desires of the owners.

All this statement asserts is that Wiki policies would then be biased towards the belief’s of the owners.

(2) I think the Wikipedia policies are great, so if you would like to give me a shot at convincing you sometime, let me know.

I welcome your shot. So far you have been civil and friendly (and I apology if I seem terse) and I appreciate that. But I do agree with most of those policies. None the less, some of these policies may be slanted.

Here are some rules of thumb (these are mine, not Wikipedia's) for detecting one's own drifting off into POV writing: Do you feel righteous or noble while typing? Definitely not.

Do you feel a profound sense of importance in what you are writing?

Absolutely not.

Are you conscious of an especially pronounced need to back up what you are writing with facts?

Only if I wrote an article. Not in discussion where facts should speak for themselves.

Are you using expressions which ask the reader to check and follow a train of logic?

Maybe.

Are you using expressions which invite the reader to consider the broader implications of what you are writing?

Maybe.

Does it occur to you that evil or misguided people will want to delete what you are adding?

No. But evil and misguided are not at all in the same category.

Is what you are writing evaluative? Does it compare two things in terms of worth, morality, correctness, or any other standard which cannot be directly measured using scientific instruments?

Maybe, especially since many things cannot be measured scientifically. And encyclopedia’s are not limited to science.

If the answer to any of these is "yes", you have a red flag indicating that you are probably violating NPOV.

This was a well thought-out list. None the less, this is still in and of itself a point of view. Though it would be nice if this standard was used by everyone, it’s very unlikely.

And remember the following from Wikipedia: “Ignore all rules - if the rules discourage you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them.”

That’s what makes this website great … as well as the scientific method for determining facts.

Jcchat66 08:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so here is my argument for why the Wikipedia policies are good. Sorry it took so long. I think the Wikipedia policy that is at the center of our different understandings is NPOV (tied up a bit with verifiability), so that is the one I want to talk about.

Wikipedia: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute"

You: This is a double-edged sword. By agreeing to Wiki on this I am also agreeing that facts are dicated by consent.

You make a good point. The Wikipedia definition of "fact" is definitely different than what we normally mean in plain old English when we say "fact". What we normally mean when we say that something is a "fact" is that it is true. But if we make truth the standard, the predictable results are obvious. Everyone will just argue about what is true or not (which is what creationists and scientists, or capitalists and socialists were already doing anyway) and get into endless revert wars. To use truth as the standard for inclusion is to invite every human controversy straight into the main text of the articles on Wikipedia.

There is no clear line between truth and opinion in many cases. And there is necessarily a balancing act in setting a threshold for truth. So what can we do to prevent endless bickering? Easy. Set the truth threshold very high, which is exactly what Wikipedia has done. If there is any pattern of serious debate in the public discourse, the thing in question does not qualify as a fact under the Wikipedia definition. This leaves us only the facts that are so obviously true that even those who wish they weren't can't bring themselves to dispute them. It ain't top-notch epistemological thinking, but it is the only logical response to the real world issues involved in mediating a project like Wikipedia.

Bear in mind that when you say relative consensus is the measure of truth on Wikipedia, you are not exactly right. Relative consensus is a minimum condition, not a free ticket. The other policies, in particular verifiability, still apply. So the policy does not allow non-truths in under the title of "fact", although it's true that it probably does keep some truths out.

Also, agreeing with this policy needn't have anything to do with your own ideas of what is fact and what isn't. All it means is that you understand the issues and realize that the real standard of truth, as it were, is not suitable to the purposes of the Wikipedia project. In that case youar argument is not with the policy per se, but with its choice to use the words "fact" and "opinion" in a creative new sense (i.e., the policies are fine but should be explained differently). Failing that, you can always continue to disagree with it but abide by it anyway, the same as you might obey a ridiculous law promulgated by the state, out of necessity or respect for harmony or law and order or whatever.

Drake Dun 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mm, I don't think I used the term "relative consensus." That sounds dangerous. But I understand your point, I think. The point I am trying to make is this. An encyclopedia is meant to spread wisdom and knowledge, using both facts and opions (The Britannica is filled to the brim with opinions!) If the tried and tested methods for determining facts and opinions is not being used by Wikipedia as it has been for many centuries, then is this not undermining the project? How is wisdom and knowledge to propogate without some basic facts being recognized? Facts which, it would be very difficult to argue against for lack of evidence or logic. Arguing against such obvious truths as "murder is wrong" serves only to undermine the whole project. On the other hand, neither the Creationists nor the Evolutionists have enough facts to claim superiorty, and should recognize that. Both are wrong in trying to convince the other of their ideas of "truth." Apparently it is not common sense to try and "prove" or "disprove" whether god exists or not, as that serves no purpose. Only what knowledge can be gleamed from the assertion of these opinions are of any value. God is not self-evident. Nor is evolution. Nor is capitalism or socialism or any other ism. What is self-evident are certain basic things like "what goes around comes around," or "that which is made belongs to the maker," or "innocent until proven guitly." (This are only examples.) If we go backwards into the stone age to ignore these basic truths, then we would have to start civilization all over again. The above three statement, for example, compose the bulk of civilization-building wisdom, tried and tested for thousands of years. Should they have to prove themselves time and time and time again? Or should they just stand as pillars until someone can prove them wrong with a newly discovered truth? Jcchat66 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth and don't accuse me of bad faith edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticisms_of_socialism&curid=1775927&diff=114436290&oldid=114089433 Your edits attempt to broadly paint me as some enemy of socialism because I call for references and citations. This is tiresome; please don't do this again in public. WP:AGF. --Quirex 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not painted you as an enemy to anything, as I have no idea what you are for or against. But you did defend the mass deletion of information on an article by Working Poor. I'm I mistaken in this? Sorry, but I have not been hostile or violated Wiki policy, but merely pointed out an obvious abuse of policy. If you want to be polite, than just say "Well, that's your opinion, Jcchat66, and I respect that." And then just leave it at that.

Calling for references and citations in one thing. But when an article has already been around for awhile, it remains in poor taste to delete so much at once, which is what Working Poor did. It amazes me that people really think that various policies cannot be abused, or that it will go unnoticed. Maybe we need a Mass Deletion Policy added. Jcchat66 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me a vandal too! Perhaps you'd get along better if you tried to defend the article by providing references. --Quirex 23:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My my, aren't you sensitive. If you'd read what I stated, you would clearly see that I have not called you anything at all. I don't know you well enough to call you anything. Are you Working Poor? Are you using two different names? Jcchat66 23:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So here's what you've done so far: claimed I'm an enemy to "your" article because I want it to be sourced; made an off hand remark suggesting what I was doing should be considered vandalism; tried to invalidate me by accusing me of being a Sockpuppet to Work Poor. And what did I do? I asked you to stop with the personal attacks the first time. Maybe third time is a charm, can you stop it with the offhanded remarks and personal attacks? --Quirex 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I've made no personal attacks against you. Asking questions, or making offhand comments, cannot be construed as personal attacks. I have never claimed anyone is an enemy to anything, and once again, it is not my article.

Example of personal attack: Quirex is an idiot because he doesn't read very well.

Example of a comment: Where does one draw the line between vandalism and mass deletions of text in the name of Wikipedia policy?

See the difference? The first example is clearly a personal attack, unprofessional, and discourteous. The second example makes no mention of anyone, nor does it imply that anyone specifically is a vandal. I have not made any personal attacks ... period. Do not accuse me of something unless you have facts to back it up, Quirex.

"If you'd read what I stated", "Quirex is an idiot because he doesn't read very well". Oh I see the difference. I see that you expect to get away with implying something "unprofessional, and discourteous" without directly stating the subject. --Quirex 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Assume whatever you like, but the world does not revolve around you, and you're wasting my time. I recommend you get a third party to examine your difficulties. I have no cause to attack you personally. Take your hostility somewhere else. Jcchat66 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Taoist Farmer

Hello. I think we would benefit from extended exchange of ideas.

For more info, check out my youtube channel KuritaElite and send me a message on there. I'll refrain from my e-mail for now.

"There are no absolutes. There is no relative." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.233.2 (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)