|
Ne duhet, në vend të kësaj, të shkruajmë artikuj me tone që ''të gjitha'' qëndrimet e paraqitura janë të paktën të pranueshme. Le të paraqesim të gjitha pikëpamjet ndërluftuese me simpati. Ne mund të shkruajmë me qëndrime, që kjo e ajo është ide e mirë, përveç asaj, mbi pikëpamjen e disa keqinterpretimeve, që përkrahësve të pikëpamjes së përmendur u ka shpëtuar kjo apo ajo hollësi. Nëse ne nuk mund t´a bëjmë këtë, ne do të shkruajmë ndoshta gjëra me aq shumë përbuzje saqë përpunimet pasuese do të kenë një kohë të vështirë duke bërë çdo gjë veç për t'i mbuluar ato.
== Opinione karakterizuese të punës së njerëzve ==
A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history. But it is important indeed how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. Notice, determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research; but that reception, unlike the idiosyncratic opinion of the Wikipedia article writer, is an opinion that really matters.
== Një rrjedhojë: të shkruash për armikun ==
Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics (for example), who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the nonbias policy ("write unbiasedly"). But the policy entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just represent our own views. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, Wikipedia will be much, much weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible.
In saying this, we are spelling out what might have been obvious from an initial reading of the policy. If each of us is permitted to contribute biased stuff, then how is it possible that the policy is ever ''violated''? The policy ''says,'' "Go thou and write unbiasedly". If that ''doesn't'' entail that each of us should fairly represent views with which we disagree, then what ''does'' it mean? Maybe you think it means, "Represent your own view fairly, and let others have a say." But consider, if we each take responsibility for ''the entire'' article when we hit "save", then when we make a change that represents ''our own'' views but not contrary views, or represents contrary views unfairly or incompletely, surely we are adding bias to Wikipedia. Does it make sense ''not'' to take responsibility for the entire article? Does it make sense to take sentences and say, "These are mine"? Perhaps, but in a project that is so strongly and explicitly committed to neutrality, that attitude seems out of place.
The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all.
"Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding ''deliberately'' flawed arguments to Wikipedia, which would be a very strange thing to do. But it's better to view this (otherwise puzzling) behavior as adding the ''best'' (published) arguments of the opposition, preferably citing some prominent person who has actually made the argument in the form in which you present it, stating them as sympathetically as possible. Academics, e.g., philosophers, do this all the time.
== Një shembull ==
It might help to consider an example of a biased text and how Wikipedians have rendered it at least relatively unbiased.
On the abortion page, early in 2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange barbs, being unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the competing positions should be represented. What was needed--and what was added--was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral and legal viability of abortion at different times. This discussion of the positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions outlined. This made it rather easier to organize and understand the arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were each then presented sympathetically, each with its strengths and weaknesses.
There are numerous other "success stories" of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and sympathetically.
'''Another example'''
Karada offered the following excellent advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:
:You won't even ''need'' to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" -- we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, cite your sources.
== Vëzhgime dhe sqarime ==
What follows is a list of common objections, or questions, regarding Wikipedia's nonbias policy, followed by replies.
=== Askush nuk eshte plotesisht objektiv ===
''Kjo është pothuaj aksiomatike. Atëherë si mund ta ruajmë "neutralitetin" nëse pikëpamjet neutrale nuk ekzistojnë?''
Ky është një nga argumentet kryesorë kundër politikës së neutralitetit. Kjo është edhe një nga më të shpeshtat pikëpamje të gabuara. Keqkuptimi qëndron në atë që politika e neutralitetit njësohet me The misunderstanding is that the policy says something about the possibility of ''objectivity.'' It simply does not. In particular, the policy does ''not'' say that there even ''is'' such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" (in Thomas Nagel's phrase)--such that articles written from ''that'' point of view are consequently objectively true. That isn't the policy and it is not our aim! Rather, we employ a different understanding of "neutral" and "unbiased" than many might be used to. The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them. To say ''this'' is not to say anything contentious, from a philosophical point of view; indeed, this is something that philosophers are doing all the time. Sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that the policy is perfectly consistent with their relativism.
If there's ''anything'' possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is ''possible'' to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). It is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible; and that such a thing ''is'' indeed possible is evident simply by observing that such texts are being written daily by the most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists.
=== Pseudoshkencë ===
''How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?''
If we're going to represent the sum total of "human knowledge"--of what we believe we know, essentially--then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes fairly, ''on some bogus view of fairness'' that would have us describe pseudoscience as if were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of ''describing a dispute fairly.''
There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem, however, that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." What these people have failed to establish, however, is that there is really a need for such a policy, ''given that'' the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to those who might be misled by pseudoscience.
=== Pikëpamjet fyese morale ===
''Çfarë është me pikëpamjet që janë fyerje morale për shumë perëndimorë, siç janë racizmi, seksizmi dhe mohimi i Holokaustit, që kanë sot disa njerëz? Sigurisht ne s´duhet të jemi asnjanës rreth ''tyre''?''
Natyrisht ne mund të fusim diskutime të gjata, që paraqesin përbuzjen tonë morale mbi këto gjëra; duke bërë kështu, ne mund të mbajmë një përkrahje të vazhdueshme të shëndoshë mbi pikëpamjen asnjanëse, duke ndihmuar pikëpamjen e përfaqësuesve me emër ose të disa grupesh njerëzish. Të tjerët do jenë të aftë të krijojnë mendimet e tyre dhe të jenë të arsyeshëm, sigurisht të pranojnë pikëpamjet tona. Ata që mbështesin racizmin, seksizmin, etj.,sigurisht nuk do të jenë të bindur të ndërrojnë pikëpamjet e tyre bazuar në një artikull me paragjykime, i cili i vë ata vetëm në mbrojtje; nga ana tjetër, nëse ne bëjmë një përpjekje të përbashkët të zbatojmë politikën tonë të pandryshueshme paparagjykimore, ne mund t´u japim atyre me bindje morale përçmuese një kuptim të thellë i cili do ndryshojë pikëpamjet e tyre.
=== Të japësh ''vlerë të barabartë'' ===
''But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of its followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.''
Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly ''does not'' state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to completely repugnant views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them ''qua'' encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from representing the majority views ''as such''; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the repugnant views; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many decent people feel toward them; and so forth.
Hence, on the one hand, Wikipedia does not officially take a stand even on such obvious issues, but on the other, it will not look as though we (the authors of Wikipedia) had accorded equal credibility to morally repugnant views. Given that the authors of Wikipedia represent a rough cross-section of the educated public, our readers can expect us to have a similar cross-section of opinion about extremism: most of us abhor it.
=== Pikëpamje shqiptaro-centrike ===
Megjithatë ky nuk është vetëm problem i Wikipedias shqiptare. Enciklopedia angleze mund të shprehë pikëpamje më amerikane apo ajo franceze pikëpamje më franceze etj..
=== Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete ===
''The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?''
In many cases, yes. Most of us believe that the ''mere'' fact that some text is biased is not enough, by itself, to delete the text outright. If it contains perfectly valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly, and certainly not deleted.
There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but certainly not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never merely as a way of punishing people who have written something biased.
=== Dealing with biased contributors ===
''I agree with the nonbias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?''
Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but politely--one gets more flies with honey) and asking others to help. If the problem is ''really'' serious, Jimbo Wales might be enlisted to beat the person over the head (so to speak) and, in the most recalcitrant cases, ask them to leave the project. There must surely be a point beyond which our very strong interest in being a ''completely'' open project is trumped by the interest the vast majority of our writers have, in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policy.
Rruga më e mirë të shmangen luftërat mbi paragjykime është të kujtohet se ne jemi këtu të gjithë njerëz të shprehur me arsye e të mençur, ose ne nuk do të punonim mbi këtë e do të kujdeseshim kaq shumë për të. Ne duhet t´a bëjmë ''synim'' tonin të kuptojmë parapritjet (perspektivat) e njëri-tjetrit e të ''punojmë fort'' të sigurohemi se parapritjet e të tjerëve janë riparaqitur ndershmërisht. Nëse ngrihet ndonjë ngatërresë se çfarë "duhet" të thotë një artikull apo çfarë është e "vërtetë," ne nuk duhet të mëvetësojmë një qëndrim kundërshtar; ne duhet të bëjmë më të mirën tonë të ''përmbahemi'' e të pyesim vetveten, "Si mund të përshkruhet kjo zënkë ndershmërisht?" Kjo duhet të pyetet vazhdimisht sapo të shprehet çdo pikë e re kundërshtore. Nuk është puna jonë të përpunojmë Wikipedia-n saqë të pasqyrojë pikëpamjet tona të pandryshueshme e pastaj t´i mbrojmë këto përpunime kundër të gjithë ardhësve; puna jonë është të punojmë së bashku, duke shtuar kryesisht përmbajtje të reja, por gjithashtu, kur të jetë e nevojëshme, të vijmë në një pikë të përbashkët mbi si duhet të përshkruhet një kundërshtí, saqë të jetë e nderëshme për të gjitha palët.
=== Making necessary assumptions ===
''What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?''
No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could not proceed without making some assumptions that ''someone'' would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also philosophy, history, physics, etc.
It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some ''other'' page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argumentation on some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own.
=== Concerns about "writing for the enemy" ===
''I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must ''lie,'' in order to faithfully represent the view I disagree with?''
This is a misunderstanding what the neutrality policy says. ''You'' aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that such-and-such, twiddle dee dee, and therefore, QED." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to ''someone else.'' That's the important thing here! If we are summing up human knowledge on a subject, in the sense above-defined, then you are leaving out important information when you omit so-and-so's argument.
It's worth observing that some scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, one brings forth counter-arguments so that one can explain why the counter-arguments fail. Such training also gives one a better knowledge of source material and what may have been rejected over the years. Something very much like the neutral point of view is an assumption among scholars--if it isn't adhered to, or if only those facts that prove a particular point are used, one might lose one's reputation.
=== Kundërshtime të tjera ===
| 