Category talk:Healing Arts Editors

Hey guys,

Christo just made an interesting statement of the Jesus talk page and Gareth clarified it some moreconcerning the lead in our articles. For me this seems like what could be a major differentiating feature between WP articles and CZ articles. WP requirements that the lead become an "abstract" "definition" of what is to follow is probably one of the most destructive elements of the writing process. It breaks the flow of an article and more often than not, sets an antagonistic tone for the rest of the article. I would venture to say that this method is not an efficient method for introducing a reader to a subject.

Anyway, considering the controversy that can erupt in healing arts articles, I wanted to see how everyone feels about turning some variation of "the lead is not an abstract" idea into a format that we use on our articles. Matt Innis (Talk) 12:55, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Let me answer this on Talk:Jesus. --Larry Sanger 13:09, 26 February 2007 (CST)

I agree that the lead is not an abstract. It's the introduction and that's not the same. Further, I'd say that the article is not a list-but a narrative essay. I think we have to put our style consensus somewhere pretty quick, or we will be doomed to fight the recurrent battle of edits-people experienced at Wikipedia coming in and "correcting" everything, and then a whole re-establishment of convention. Without some guidelines, they -and people who are totally naive on a wiki, are left adrift.Nancy Sculerati MD 13:16, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Agree, and it isn't that it is their fault. We are all creatures of habit. I do think we can do this without alienating past WP editors. In fact, I would venture to say that most would be relieved by this type action because I am sure they feel the same way, just some on a less conscious level. -Matt Innis (Talk) 13:20, 26 February 2007 (CST)

One of the niceties of WP is that there are extensive "manifesto" type pages, describing in some detail the goals and philosophy of the project. It makes disagreements less arbitrary, so that instead of arguing "I think we should make the page x, and you think the page should be y," the argument is "You are not adhering to WP:NPOV, I am making changes to your edit." It's a better place to be arguing, IMHO, less prone to ad-hominem attacks.--Michael Benjamin 18:01, 27 February 2007 (CST)

I think it's a lot more advantageous to have a body of people interpreting a stated, documented philosophy than it is having ten or fifteen people pointing fingers at each other making insinuations. Larry, the CZ manifesto is brilliant, but seems like the philosophy of CZ is still evolving. I think it needs a little more meat on the bone.--Michael Benjamin 18:01, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Here's a modest proposal: we should import the WP manifestos and edit them to our liking.--Michael Benjamin 18:01, 27 February 2007 (CST)

By the way, I think the lead should avoid making unsubstantiated statements, but that it should attempt to summarize in a narrative fashion the concepts presented in the body of the article. Some of the topics are really broad--what should the lead paragraph about anemia say? The concept of a lead probably is more apropos of some topics than others.--Michael Benjamin 18:01, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Here's another novel idea--I have taken the liberty of creating a CZ:Lead page so we can house all this erudite discussion in its own home, instead of looking for it on the Jesus page...--Michael Benjamin 18:01, 27 February 2007 (CST)

These last remarks have no connection what so ever with healing arts, would you mind moving them to the appropriate pages? They will be deleted in 2 days. Robert Tito | Talk 18:07, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Why 2 days? Also, I took the liberty of creating Citizendium_Pilot:Lead paragraph. Check it out.--Michael Benjamin 01:11, 28 February 2007 (CST)

Michael, thanks, I do appreciate your comments. I do understand your WP addiction, as I was there at one point as well. It's a hard one to crack. Do feel free to bring your experience with you, but I would encourage you to take the next step and study the difference between NPOV and Larry's neutral policy. The Jesus page is probably as good a start as any. If you can't find it there, you can't find it anywhere:) Matt Innis (Talk) 21:07, 27 February 2007 (CST)

You are kind. You'll see that I'm not so much addicted to wikipedia so much as I am amazed by its success (and perplexed by its failures). Perhaps there are some advantages to the WP way, and some to the CZ way. I think that not throwing out the baby with the bathwater is prudent. I will read the Jesus page, but maybe the "Larry's neutral policy" deserves its own dedicated page?--Michael Benjamin 01:11, 28 February 2007 (CST)

I read the Sanger point of view discussion referenced from the Jesus page. It's hosted on Wikimedia, for one thing. Also, it doesn't really address his vision for the Citizendium project, only Wikipedia. As I've said here and other places, and as others have said here, I think there needs to be a clear vision of what the goals are for the CZ project specifically. In fact, that probably should come before people write a lot of stuff, since otherwise they might be wasting their time on the wrong thing.--Michael Benjamin 01:25, 28 February 2007 (CST)

Finding our voice

I think here we have an opportunity within this workgroup to develop our own guidelines as appropriate interpretation of CZ policy. I think this is more practicable than seeking consensus across all workgroups, so long as we are clearly working pragmatically to CZ spirit. I'm very keen that we explore novel paths that take us away from what we have felt are flaws or weaknesses in Wikipedia.

I think we do need a brief encapsulation of how we interpret neutrality as it relates to articles in our remit, and I think it wholly appropriate that we have indicative guidelines for article structure (not prescriptive, but guidelines).

I'd suggest that we try to develop these by thinking from the perspective of the reader; who are we writing for, what do they need or want to know, and what style is most likely to capture and reward the reader. My view on neutrality is that it is not so much a moral imperative as a pragmatic imperative; unless an article is transparently reasonable, balanced, rational, objective and authoritative it will not gain credence and respect, so what we write will ultimately be pointless. We have to allow the reader to make up his or her own mind; we might wish we could persuade them of our opinions, but an opinion encouraged by rhetoric or selective or biased presentation is unlikely to persist, even if the presentation doesn't antagonise readers directly.

So the principles that we need to encapsulate are that articles a) should avoid appearing either to promote or to denigrate the opinions that we report. b) should report claims of efficacy or ineffectiveness, but without endorsing those reports c) should always aim to explain concepts and ideas as clearly and coherently as possible, even when we may believe those concepts to be unsound d) should each be consistent in its criteria for selecting information to report or opinions to describe (no dual standards). For example, where there may be dispute about efficacy it would not be acceptable to adopt quite different stringency for reporting studies that show effectiveness or ineffectiveness. e) should not appear to be giving advice about treatments f) should aim to be seen as fair and objective by readers of diverse viewpoints

It may follow from this that introductions to a topic may be preferred to summaries as leads, which very often editorialise simply by selection.Gareth Leng 09:06, 28 February 2007 (CST)

Gareth Leng 09:06, 28 February 2007 (CST)

Well said Gareth. I think we are all close. I'm adding Larry's comments that he made on the Talk:Jesus page aehile back that I think are pertinent here (Larry feel free to expound if you think something is different):

I think it is an excellent idea to have articles that explain the such-and-such view about so-and-so (e.g., the Mormon view of Jesus). But the existence of a comprehensive set of such articles would not remove an obligation on us to create a good article about Jesus. So it doesn't really solve the problem.

The vastness of the topic and the vastness of perspectives on the topic are hardly unique to this article, nor should they pose problems in principle. The solution is that one presents first and foremost the leading views held by the majority of the article's main "constituency," i.e., the people who care a lot about the topic, or who are affected by it. Who would that be? In the case of this article, I would say, it is Christians and religious scholars. It would be absurd, IMO, to give equal space to the Muslim view of Jesus as to the Christian view. In giving less than equal space to the Muslim view, few people will understand us to be saying that the Muslim view of Jesus is incorrect, or less probable than mainstream Christian views--particularly if we can have a whole article about the Muslim view. Of course, then, the primary "constituency" for the article on the Muslim view on Jesus would be Muslims and Islamic scholars. Moreover, even if we give a large bulk of space to one view, that many others do not share, we do not make the article state that view as if it were fact: the view in question is sympathetically described, but not endorsed.

The point is that when we must apportion limited space among different competing views, we do so roughly based on the best "objective" expert estimate of the proportion of views held by people who most deeply care about, or are affected by, the subject of the article. I would defend the general drift of this policy for articles about many other controversial topics: evolution, holocaust denial, communism, Microsoft, etc.

--Larry Sanger 19:29, 3 February 2007 (CST)

-Matt Innis (Talk) 12:11, 28 February 2007 (CST)