User:Blackworm

NOTE: User:Blackworm is: (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a majority-Christian country, (8) from a developed nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as a white-collar worker or enrolled as a student rather than employed as a labourer. Systemic bias states that the average Wikipedia editor is also all of these things, under the heading, The Origins of Bias, and in the context of its statement: "The Wikipedia project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting as imbalanced coverage of a subject, thereby discriminating against the less represented demographic groups." Please note the existence of WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, to which WP:BIAS apparently no longer redirects.

[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/circumcise?view=uk Another mainstream dictionary. 2010.] [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circumcising Another one. 2010.] [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/circumcised Another. 2010.]

Would the following be NPOV? Is marriage commonly used to mean heterosexual marriage? Discussion welcome here.
=Marriage=
 * This page is about heterosexual marriage. For gay marriage, see same-sex marriage.

Is this an appropriate characterization of the abortion debate?
HARM ___________*___________|________.________|___________%____________BENEFIT

''At one end of the line are actions that are extremely harmful. Most people would recommend against these, and there is a point (marked with an asterisk) at which the degree of harm is so great that most people would be in favour of making such actions illegal. At the other end are actions that are clearly beneficial. Most would recommend in favour of these, and there is a point (marked with a percent sign) at which the degree of benefit is so great that there would be support for making these actions compulsory. At the exact centre of the line are actions that are completely neutral, and surrounding this point is what could be described as a "fairly neutral" zone.''

Discussion welcome.

Some opinions I currently hold
I believe editors vary greatly in their tolerance for pedantry from other editors based largely on "gut feelings." When this gut feeling arises, and an editor still feels an edit should or should not be made, that editor may make an accusation of "wikilawyering," or "trolling," or "failure to assume good faith," accusations which all essentially amount to failures to assume good faith, but whose merit is sometimes judged by the community level of respect of the editor making the accusation. A license to ignore all rules, perhaps. A new editor would have no defense in that case.

One means some new editors may find to minimize these feelings and actually AGF is to attempt to match and exceed the level of pedantry of opposing editors. Sadly, this may then become a game of "which side will accuse the other of bad faith first." Almost anyone neutral left in the discussion by then has no idea what the remaining discussing parties are talking about, making the end result again a simple calculation of how many editors are on what side. Is that consensus?

–

Increasing an article's status (Good Article, Featured Article, etc.) increases its distribution, which is natural; people want to read and respect good articles. Recklessness is not a way to get there, thus expressing the possibility of increased status in debates about article content is to be strongly discouraged.

–

In a formal logical argument, the word "and" means the same as the word "but." Choosing which word to use in an article can be tricky as far as proper adherence to WP:NPOV, since it often involves a judgment call on the part of an editor.

–

Editors concerned that the terms used in reliable sources are shocking, and seeking to minimize or eliminate these terms in articles, but facing significant opposition, seem to only have the option of convincing opposing editors in Talk; perhaps by providing an argument, using reliable sources where possible, suggesting that the terms may be shocking to many or are otherwise inappropriate. Failing that, one compromise solution may be to quote the source more directly, perhaps in the form, [Source] states: "[allegedly shocking language]." That form transfers any error of shock or sensationalism from Wikipedia, to the source, satisfying WP:NPOV (since the reader is deciding whether the source is sensationalistic or shocking -- we are not being sensationalistic or shocking). It has the distinct advantage of putting the source's reputation on the line, not Wikipedia's. In these latter cases, where it's clear some editors are shocked by the terms and some editors consider them neutral, the compromise solution allows the editors shocked by the terms to stop Wikipedia from implicitly condoning their use (e.g., it's the sources using them), while allowing the editors who consider the terms neutral to have the concept expressed in those terms. It allows the reader more room to decide on whether the sources are being sensationalistic or shocking, rather than a stance on that question implicitly being made through Wikipedia's choice of words or other organization of material. Note also that Wikipedia is not censored.

–

In this article, the later assessment of trials (presumably years later) apparently seems more accurate on a matter of quantitative measure (percentage of complications), than what the trials suggested to the researchers who performed them, to the point of influencing public policy. It is thus important that assessments of studies we cite from reliable sources attain a high standard of peer review, such as that found in articles published in scientific journals. Any opinion not so-reviewed may be relevant, but must to attributed solely to the author. Letters to reliable sources likewise should not be given the full weight of the reliable source in the citation -- this can usually be accomplished by adding (Letter.) to the visible citation -- if they are to be considered reliable sources at all, which seems a point of dispute. (I say they aren't.)

–

Featured Archived Genital Cutting Discussion
This section will hold some of my favourite archived article discussions related to human genital cutting. The first is:


 * Hypothetical. 17:45, 27 April 2007 -- 18:06, 8 May 2007

Featured Essays
BAIT

TAGTEAM

HONESTY: "An honest Wikipedian: [...] Does not say things they know to be untrue simply to support their argument. [...] Withholding of information that contradicts other information, or filtering out data-points that do not match one's assumptions, is dishonesty by omission."

Random Quotes
"The most popular reason for docking dog breeds is to prevent injury to working dogs. For instance, it has been stated that a vermin's bite to the working dog's flop ears can lead to a systemic infection, a serious medical problem that wouldn't occur were there no flop ears to be bitten." - From Docking (animal)