User talk:MjolnirPants/Academic Neutrality

Comment
I think missing in this is the idea of what our long-term coverage should be, rather than the short term, eg what's in WP:RECENTISM. The application of academic notability to well-established topics like the moon landing is a good example of where the above is the correct view. But in the midst of any current on-going controversy (in addition to the new existence of 24/7 news coverage, citizen blogs, etc., which didn't exist back then), trying to determine academic notability as the event is unfolding is a pointless exercise. If we have to cover a controversy that is still developing, we should treat it as far removed as possible and at high a level as possible, which is to report only the facts, and try not to get too much into the analysis and opinions unless that itself is part of the controversy. That is "document the controversy" but not attempt to assess the controversy (who's right or wrong) unless it has died out. This unfortunately is very difficult to separate from writing about the events for many editors that spend time on current event articles, but we need to have a better sense that we're aiming for how articles should be long after the event's concluded, not what they look like now. --M asem (t) 15:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading again, you're getting to this point in the next section, but I think you want to stress the time factor here. For example, you might want to use a recent example like the 9/11 attacks - we're well past any point where there's significant controversy over this, so we can now apply academic neutrality to review the positions of major sources at the time, but probably couldn't do that in 2005 or so. I think something that stresses that academic neutrality should be adopted once the controversy is no longer in any play. --M asem  (t) 15:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * (Let me know if you've watched this page and I'll stop pinging you.)
 * The application of academic notability to well-established topics like the moon landing is a good example of where the above is the correct view. But in the midst of any current on-going controversy (in addition to the new existence of 24/7 news coverage, citizen blogs, etc., which didn't exist back then), trying to determine academic notability as the event is unfolding is a pointless exercise. I don't know that it's pointless, but it's certainly difficult as all hell, and extremely easy to fuck it up. See the next response below for my thoughts on this. I think one of the issues is that with some subjects, like politics, it's hard to argue that there even exists a category of sources that we can term "experts" to distinguish them from other reliable sources. An example of what I mean here would be contrasting a peer-reviewed meta-review of scientific literature (the expert source) with a well-written science reporting story in a major news publication (the "common" reliable source). I do think adding a bit about expert sources could be a big improvement.
 * That is "document the controversy" but not attempt to assess the controversy (who's right or wrong) unless it has died out. Hmmm. I want to disagree because "after it has died out" suggests to me that we should wait until there's no controversy left, which means withholding judgement on "live" controversies like the flat earth, creationism, ant-vaxxers, climate change, etc. But it occurs to me that you might mean something like "until the controversy among expert sources has died out," in which case we're pretty close to being in lockstep agreement. I do think this is something that should be added to the essay, as well, and perhaps something about minor controversies among experts (where a clear majority have one view, but a minority hold a "legitimate fringe" view, as it were).
 * This unfortunately is very difficult to separate from writing about the events for many editors that spend time on current event articles, but we need to have a better sense that we're aiming for how articles should be long after the event's concluded, not what they look like now I agree completely. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to add them in or propose them here. I hope for this essay to be moved to wikispace one day, so don't take it's presence in my userspace as any sort of ownership. I would vastly prefer that this represent consensus, not just my own thoughts. Obviously right now, it's my thoughts on the consensus here, which is the best I can do by myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Responding to your addition at the end (which conflicted with my edit): I see what you're saying, and I think that's a good idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I do agree it should be focused on looking at what the expert sources say and when they tend to settle down. I'm sure that one can still find expert sources that disagree on, say, the appropriate of US's actions in the Vietnam War, but at least well outside any immediate changing picture it is much easier to apply UNDUE. And I would not be afraid to discuss the specific situations leading to needed this: easily the topic of Russia interference and possible collusion in the 2016 election is a poster child from trying to judge a situation far before expert sources not connected with the event have had their say.
 * I do appreciate that you've included something I've been trying to argue for a while: . We need to make sure editors are well aware of this, even if its one of those things that can't be easily documented but can be observed if editors try to think for themselves, but unfortunately too many cases of editors asserting "Reliable source = infallible source" leaves us in a bad place. We need to stress this point more than ever, but without trying to imply a false balance is needed to adjust, or that sources like CNN/NYtimes are now unreliable.
 * I'll look to see if there's anything I'd add; I know I've spent a good amount of time trying to rationalize how to work past such issues created by bad journalism today. --M asem (t) 19:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * easily the topic of Russia interference and possible collusion in the 2016 election is a poster child from trying to judge a situation far before expert sources not connected with the event have had their say. My first draft used that as an example, but it was too difficult to show how academic neutrality worked well there, lol. So a bit of open cherry-picking perhaps, though in truth all such examples are cherry-picked to a degree. But I've been toying with the idea of a "Disadvantages of academic neutrality" section with that as an example. I think that if both of us are thinking of that situation, that's a sign that it'd make for a great example, since we're often at odds over the details in discussions around this subject.
 * I do appreciate that you've included something I've been trying to argue for a while: Well, it's pretty clearly true. Mind, I agree with most of the reliably sourced criticisms of Trump, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing that there's a dearth of RSes defending him. And of course as a result of that agreement, I think there's a very good reason that there are few or no RSes defending Trump, but that, in turn doesn't prevent me from recognizing that it's still lopsided coverage, or from recognizing that it wouldn't be so lopsided had journalists stuck to their guns en masse.
 * I have read some very neutral (in a journalistic sense) stories about Trump, but few enough that we wouldn't be able to support the current weight of text about him on their backs. I don't necessarily prefer those stories, either, because I'm a huge fan of academic neutrality, but again: that doesn't prevent me from recognizing when a journalist is letting their own views shape or at least color the story.
 * but unfortunately too many cases of editors asserting "Reliable source = infallible source" leaves us in a bad place. Indeed. Our policy is such that it encourages that sort of thinking. In academia, academics are the ones using academic neutrality, whereas it's regular folks using it on WP. That works great when you're dealing with a body of highly educated people who have been trained to -and are paid to- think critically and independently, but when you apply that to a mass of folks with widely varying educations and abilities to engage in critical thought, it becomes a problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm here because I saw Masem refer to it at NPOV/N. If you want to make a "thing" of Academic Neutrality it would help to start with a short clear definition and some citations to references and other secondary definitions. From the text, I gather you have these sources or references, and citing them would take this beyond and above one editor's take on an otherwise defined policy. I don't see much use of this as a defined term itself in academia, but I am not questioning that you have a clear view of the term and what you mean by it. (unsolicited comment -- disregard at will.)  SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is intended to be an essay to which to point editors who push the "if I can tell which side is 'right' from the text, it's not neutral" argument at controversial pages. Those pages in which this argument is pushed tend not to be pages you edit. See Intelligent design, Creationism, Graham Hancock, Dr. Oz, Deepak Chopra, Modern flat earth societies, MMR vaccine controversy and other pseudoscience-related articles to see how often this is pushed. It does, sometimes, appear at pages closer to your preferred topic as well, such as Alex Jones and Mark Dice.
 * The reason I chose a political example was because it was a subject that almost everyone has some minor interest in and knowledge of.
 * The point isn't so much my take on policy, but the verifiable and explicit difference between our policy and what inexperienced editors think of "neutrality". But I have been thinking of how best to word an introduction, so as to expand the lede and establish more context. As for the term itself, it's just something I've heard used a few times when people in academia are trying to explain the same thing to people outside of academia. I don't think of it as a proper term for the practice, but rather a descriptive one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My concern/inquiry was because in my career in academia, (which is not very recent) I never encountered the term and then I saw Masem kind of hang his hat on it at NPOV/N as if there were some specific meaning to it. At any rate, I think if you have a concise robust definition that would be great, if not it doesn't detract from the substance of the essay except if folks impute some wider meaning to the term that goes beyond what you say here. It's certainly a worthwhile subject.  SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason the term applies to current political events, our coverage is better when we approach it from an academic standpoint, which is distant in both time and involvement (or lack thereof) of the writing. That's related to RECENTISM. Unfortunately, we have editors that want to update the instant something happens, so there's a need to understand the balance of this academic neutrality (which isn't going to come about in the short term), and other types of neutrality. --M asem (t) 20:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with these comments. I see sticking to a remote, objective take as the best term precisely because I believe that my own personal views will be borne out by such a take. I have very few doubts that this will not be so, and in case it is, I have a promise I made to myself many years ago to adjust my views to whatever reality turns out to be to fall back on. So by pushing for a strict and uncompromising take on neutrality, I get to POV push my liberal heart out while improving the project and avoiding violating policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want a concise and robust definition, try this:
 * A point of view which takes the position that that which is most likely to be true is true.
 * And yes, that is my own original composition, based entirely upon noted similarities between the way academia tends to approach neutrality and the way WP does the same. If you want even more robustness, well, that's just WP:NPOV. I suspect that Masem simply liked and adopted the term.
 * I could probably dig up quite a few sources on the treatment of neutrality in academia, and show how our own principles are derived from them, if necessary. But really, I only wrote this page to avoid having to write shorter versions every time some naval-gazing, self-important blowhard like comes along to whine about us calling Intelligent Design a pseudoscience.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Masem, I'm a known anti-recentism hawk myself, but I think neutrality is a separate question. Do you have a concise published definition or some references that show a widely accepted definition of "academic neutrality"?  SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a strong definition, simply from understanding that talking about a topic from an "academic" viewpoint generally means treating the topic impartially, indifferently or without any preconceived bias or notions, as one would treat any academic study. To that end, its why time, or distance from the event, is a critical factor - it not only allows time for primary sources to be published, but for the author, the necessary distance in time to separate their personal feelings on a topic from writing about it. We can attempt to write this during the current event, but I know on WP this is a losing goal - too many editors in a vast number of areas have bias they will subscribe to and have difficulty putting their personal opinions or emotions aside to see the bigger picture (events around Trump only serve as core examples). --M asem (t) 21:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pants, thanks. I am not convinced that this provides an operational definition, because 1. we don't know a priori what's most likely to be true and 2. finding what's true using that definition could easily lead to self-reference or circularity. Think about some of the POV editors on American Politics or Russian interference matters. Some of them don't have the background to evaluate what's "likely to be true" and tend to misinterpret sources and overlook key facts, from what I can tell. Anyway I will give this some more thought.  SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We have other policies and guidelines to help us decides what most likely to be true,like WP:V and WP:IRS. And as far as I know, there is no such thing as a widely-accepted definition of "academic neutrality". As I explained, it's not a proper term, but a descriptive one which I have used as a proper term in this essay. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it, but reading Masem's comments it appear(ed)(s) to me that he takes it to refer to some specific widely-understood standard or operational yardstick. Moreover, Masem, there are many areas of academic research and writing that have to do with very recent and unsettled and ongoing contemporary events and works of fiction, design, public policy, or scientific inquiry. Your version of "academic neutrality" would invalidate all that work -- which is published, cited, and debated among accredited and acknowledged experts in many fields.  SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Those writings would not be considered neutral. It can't invalidate work to which it doesn't apply. Anything written to be persuasive (which would include the vast majority of journal articles) would not be considered neutral, and so academic neutrality would not apply. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Academic neutral at least to me is how a work is written, not how it is used. And the key is how dispassionate the author remains to the topic. And to stress what is in the essay, academic neutrality is the goal, but it's impossible to enforce in the short term, but we have to make sure that we don't strive away from that. It's how we should handle articles in the interim until we can fairly approach them with academic neutrality that is the issue here, and where, particularly in the area covered by the Arbcom AP2 sanctions, there's a lot of problems because editors are not keeping academic neutrality in sight. --M asem (t) 22:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Most academic and scientific work does not conform to this definition of "academic neutrality" so I think it is a confusing choice of words because folks who are familiar with how academic, scientific, or scholarly work is done will not understand wtf it's talking about -- while at the same time the label "academic neutrality" is not needed to validate the well-reasoned points MPants is making in his essay-in-progress.  SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So maybe the label is wrong, but the idea should be one that WP should be striving for, which is to focus articles on a long-term, far-distant, dispassionate style of writing, ideally using sources that mirror that. When we don't have those sources, then we have to appropriately temper those that we do have if there is the need to cover the topic. This means staying purposely aloof to the emotions and passion that can run deep in those sources so that our articles don't weight down on those in the short-term (the academic in the ivory tower metaphor then). Unfortunately, there's far too many examples where that is just not happening with editors showing extreme passion about a topic without the sense of distance we ask for. --M asem (t) 23:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Spec, it's not a formal term. It's just a slightly more description way of referring to the widely accepted approach to neutrality we take here. It's not "Academic Neutrality" it's "academic neutrality". Hell, even in the essay I introduce it as "something which is occasionally referred to as..." Don't read anything else into the it, because there's nothing more there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not dismissing any of the work you've done here, just saying the tag was confusing to me. And I think it appears to have gotten Masem off-course at NPOV/N because I agree with him about recentism but much of his contribution on the Trump matter there referred to academic neutrality as if it would be something most editors would be familiar with. I find that there are some editors who tend to be Trump-defender POV oriented at various articles who fail to stand back and ask "will anyone care about this bit X in a month, a year or 5 years."  For example there was a bitter struggle to shoehorn the article with that ridiculous military physician's press event after Trump's physical exam.  Even though nobody except a few WP editors took it seriously.  SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I find that there are some editors who tend to be Trump-defender POV oriented at various articles who fail to stand back and ask "will anyone care about this bit X in a month, a year or 5 years." Oh, the irony. It's like molasses. You could cut it with a knife. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you must have me confused with someone else. I am SPECIFICO. Done here. Thanks for your hospitality. Hope some of it is helpful.  SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)