MultiplePointsOfView

A concept for wikis meaning the coexistance of different points of view. Mpov is opposed to wikipedias npov (neutral point of view). I guess community-wiki is mpov.

Vielfache Standpunkte (multiple Gesichtspunkte / manigfaltige Sichtweisen) sind in manchen wikis ausserhalb der wikipedia der Grundsatz beim Erstellen und Bearbeiten von wiki-Seiten. Nach der englischen Bezeichnung Multiple Points Of View werden vielfache Standpunkte auch MPOV abgekürzt.

Hinter dem Grundsatz der vielfachen Standpunkte steht das Bestreben nach Toleranz, der Suche nach Kompromissen und der Koexistenz von möglicherweise und zunächst unvereinbar erscheinenden Sichtweisen. Die Beachtung dieser Prinzipien sind es, die Frieden ermöglichen, ihre Nichtbeachtung führt zu Krieg.

Der Grundsatz der vielfachen Standpunkte ist die Übertragung von Erfahrungen aus dem realen Leben/der wirklichen Welt (diese schließt die Interaktion von Menschen sowohl off-line als auch on-line ein) auf das Medium wiki. Bei hinlänglich scharfer Betrachtung zeigt sich, dass nirgends auf der Welt zwei Menschen existieren, die exakt einer Meinung sind. Diese Kluft spiegelt sich gar in den Wissenschaften wider, wo sich beispielsweise die Newton’sche Physik als zwar für etliche Zwecke praktisch, weil oftmals hinlänglich genau, jedoch - spätestens seit den Erkenntnissen von A. Einstein - als nicht wirklich präzise erwiesen haben. Der menschliche Geist vermag es, sich ein Modell der Wirklichkeit zu schaffen und dieses Modell mit großer Anstrengung zu verfeinern und weiter zu entwickeln, er vermag es jedoch nicht, die Wirklichkeit vollständig und allumfassend zu begreifen. Auch wenn individueller menschlicher Geist untereinander verschaltet wird - durch Kommunikation, verstärkt seit seiner Konservierbarkeit mit der Erfindung der Schriftsprache, des Buchdrucks und letztlich auch durch wiki (dessen die wikipedia ein höchstrespektabler Teil ist) -, kann und wird die Suche nach einem präzisen Modell der Wirklichkeit nie zu einem Ende führen. Um nun eine Kollaboration von Intelligenz weitestgehend zu ermöglichen, bedarf es eines Grundsatzes der vielfachen Standpunkte. Vermutlich steht das, was mit dem Grundsatz eines neutralen Standpunkts in der wikipedia gemeint ist, nicht im Widerspruch zum Grundsatz der vielfachen Standpunkte. Es zeigt sich jedoch, dass die Bezeichnung neutral irreführend und wenig präzise ist. Es gibt keine Neutralität. Jedenfalls nicht für Menschen. Wer wollte sich denn anmaßen, die Mitte zu kennen? Um diesem Dilemma zu entkommen, brachte der menschliche Geist das Modell eines allwissenden Gottes hervor und beging angelegentlich die Dummdreistigkeit, sich mit diesem gleichzusetzen. Das war jedoch lange bevor es wiki gab.

I wrote the above article yesterday on de.wikipedia. It took less than a minute (in words: < 1 minute) to have it marked as a cancellation-candidate, hardly enough to even read it. It says take part on the discussion about cancellation-candidates if you think this article should not be deleted. This “discussion” page is a clustered mess of people screaming rubbish, chancel!, move! or such like and has nothing to do with what somebody having a slight idea about culture would call a discussion. Exactly the same had happened to me before on my articles on collaborative editor and wikitorial (I wasted a lot of energy to explain and improve then and the articles finaly remained). This should have been enough for me already as an experiment, but I wanted to know for sure. One of the persons after a few minutes commented on my a text (which is surely improveable btw but just as surely not to be pissed on) using a Hitler-quote which was obviously intended to hurt me, and I confirm that it deeply did so. Nobody reacted on this. In the evening I cancelled the article I had written and the noise named “discussion” and left #de.wikipedia where I had been lurking for the last months (Du hast das noch nicht so drauf mit der Administrator-Willkür and such) having decided to consequently ignore the German wikipedia from now on. The de.wikipedia’s ok as a sheer reference, I respect the wikipedia-project a lot and will keep contributing to the English and Italian one, but the German wikipedia as a wiki to contribute to simply does not exist for me anymore. It’s kinda sad but I’m glad to have found out.

I do support all you say … even if i dont’understand German. I wish wikis could allow Mpov’s to coexist and interoperate.

I don’t think CommunityWiki is MultiplePointsOfView. Neither is it NeutralPointOfView.

I’m not so sure MPOV is the opposite of NPOV. Because, there are other alternatives as well. There’s what we have here, on CW, which is (…I don’t have LinkLanguage for it yet.) There’s “single point of view.” There is “oppositional points of view,” where two people from (what they believe to be) opposing points of view talk.

What do we do on CommunityWiki?

We have moderation over the realm of acceptable debate. This is a common thing in groups. NoamChomsky? calls it “acceptable parameters of debate.”

Within most any social group:

  • There is what is clearly accepted.
  • There is what is debatable.
  • There is what is not debatable.

This is part of PassagesOfPerspective, and this is part of IntegrationAndIdentity.

In the places where CommunityWiki is MPOV, it is such because the MPOV is within the “clearly accepted” and “debatable” categories.

But we are not MPOV. We do not accept all perspectives and points of view. We have things that are not debatable.

Why is this? It is because we are building a PageDatabase and TrustedLinkLanguage. We do not want to link here, and then have our arguments contradicted by what we mean to say. The effect would be similar to saying things, but then the meaning of everything you said reversed suddenly! In short, we would not be able to communicate what we want to communicate. We would damage our expressive power.

For an extreme case, something that is clearly in the “not debatable” category, (and so, clearly pulls us out of MultiplePointsOfView,) consider what would happen if we said “we are commited to MPOV,” and then someone insisted that we make “the white supremacist perspective” available on everything here. If we were indeed comitted to MPOV, then we would have to accept such a thing.

To show how this damages our expressive power: Consider that you want to talk with someone now, using our LinkLanguage. But, we can’t, and fully say what we mean. Because when we talk now, our meaning behind the LinkLanguage now says: “I accept white supremacism as something worth thinking about.” That is: I cannot communicate with the LinkLanguage anymore. And then: There’s much less incentive for me to work on CommunityWiki.

(note to self: There’s an argument in here for articulating UnconsciousCommunication?.)

I do believe in RadicalInclusiveness. But it must happen at the level of the Internet, not in our island of CommunityWiki.

It is important that white supremecisists are able to work through their perspective, I believe. The PassagesOfPerspective requires that people are able to go through nasty perspectives. Many good people have come by way of Objectivism or Scientology, for milder examples, and they have many good ideas. We believe in Free Speech, because (I think) we believe in the PassagesOfPerspective. (If we did not believe in the PassagesOfPerspective, would we believe in free speech? I have my doubts.)

The CommunityWiki, (like any CommunalWiki building a LinkLanguage), is an amplification of our voice. By the power of wiki, we are able to say things that we couldn’t say otherwise. They have to be our words.

We can change the parameters of valid debate. A MetaDiscussion? takes place then. This is an IdentityAndIntegration challenge. If we choose to address and include the new ideas, everything is fine, and the parameters change. If the group chooses not to, then there is an IdentityAndIntegration conflict, and a perspective must be expressed elsewhere.

I guess, basically:

  1. The PassagesOfPerspective is a moral imperative.
  2. People need to be able to build their IntelligenceSystems?.
  3. This requires holding some perspectives, entertaining others, and rejecting still others.

If you were to deny people the right to hold perspectives, entertain others, and reject still others, then you would deny them the ability to build an IntelligenceSystem? (to think about things, to collect their thoughts, to explore a realm of thought,) and you then cripple the PassagesOfPerspective.

Hey, this could be related to the “debate” series from a couple months ago …

Does MultiplePointsOfView necessarily imply RadicalInclusiveness ? If you’re not trying to be as objective as wikipedia, you’ll allow divergence and more “opinion” stuff. So, multiple points of view but not all ? You could say that pages on VotingIsEvil and VotingIsGood allow for something like that, but then I’m not sure the point of view of thoe pages is that different.

I mostly agree with Lion, though I think RadicalInclusiveness may have it’s place at a smaller scale than the whole internet - you could have RadicalInclusiveness / MultiplePointsOfView at the InterWiki level. Or WikiNodes could have something about the ‘acceptable parameters of debate”, with redirections to better places tot alk about certain topics. I can imagine a WikiNode network that tries to have RadicalInclusiveness - a WikiFarm can make sure that it’s always possible to add new perspectives even if they don’t fit in well in one of the existing communities.

If MultiplePointsOfView means MPOV as talked with respect to WikiPedia, then it is a RadicalInclusiveness thing. The funny thing is, NeutralPointOfView is also RadicalInclusiveness. That’s the “problem” with both of them: Many groups have an interest in not being radically inclusive, and want to exclude other perspectives. And there is a limited supply of police.

I do think external links are an excellent vehicle for connecting up with perspectives that a given wiki does not agree with. “Good neighborliness” with people you disagree with, and all. You can always say, at the bottom of a page: “For alternative ideas on this issue, see FooWiki:X, BarWiki:X, BazWiki:X.”

We frequently do it here, with respect to MeatballWiki.

This form of MultiplePointsOfView, I believe in. However, I don’t think it’s a requirement.

One of the most important rules (in my mind, at least,) of the WikiNodes system, is that every WikiNode is under the control of the WikiCommunity that works that wiki. If we don’t respect that rule- it’s basically like saying: “I own your front door.” The WikiNode is a gateway between a wiki and it’s neighbors. But the gateway is built into the house of the people who live in the house. And the gateway’s ultimate authority is the people who live in the house.

If the Christian’s wiki doesn’t want to be noded with the Buddhist’s wiki, we shouldn’t try to change that, I don’t think.

I agree with Lion about the problems and relativity of MPOV. This “acceptable parameters of debate” view is perhaps fruitful. Traditionally wikis (GPOV or MPOV, or whatever) would exclude white suprememicism as OffTopic (world view, religion politics).

Currently we identified:

  • GPOV - given point of view (e. g. religious community)
  • CPOV - consensual point of view (e. g. WardsWiki intentions, technical optimum)
  • NPOV - neutral point of view (e. g. WikiPedia)
  • FPOV - factual point of view
  • MPOV - multiple points of view (reasonable)
  • OPOV - open point of view (anarchical)

I’ve tried to put it this way: wikis use different POV in different areas. For example GPOV with respect to its constitutional rules, MPOV with respect to its main topic (MeatBall?).

EmileKroeger suggested (in IRC): “CW-POV.”

The “CommunityWiki PointOfView.” ;)

The problem is that CW-POV isn’t telling to a visitor.

Ah,… Quite right.

Perhaps there will one day have an encoding system for describing wiki norms.

tech+, dev, soc, WP+, wiki+, swearing-, lib+, commie-, cap~, visual+, MMmMMmMMMF? +F (just talk!), … ;D

So different POV’s in different areas, interesting and true it seems to me. They are like dark caves these wikis. You have a torch, you can walk around. And some are huge. Your torch shines but you never know how much of the cave is in darkness and hidden for you. You expect the cave to go on in a certain direction and instead you face its solid wall, you follow an unexpected opening in a tunnel and see, it opens up into a vast hall. Maybe that vast that you can’t even see the walls of it. Your torch doesn’t shine far enough (the metaphor is stolen from JulesVerne?, Journey to the center of the earth). What to do then? You shout, to hear if there is an echo (aka troll a bit). So different POV’s in different areas of the cave. What I wonder about is what the walls are made of. What is it that keeps me from stepping right through them?

We need to map all these subterranian caves. We need more station-halls wihin our caves like the wiki-node where straight tubes are drilled through the rock that take you to similar halls in other caves. Ok, I stop tortureing the metaphor, but honestly: What about the topic-nodes?

Mattis, what you describe sound like Moria, Tolkien’s kingdom of the dwarfs, deep in the mountain. What are the walls? They are the VOID (ChristopherAlexander) that surrounds the structures built by generations. No knowing everything, not finding everything, a problem? Are irregularities, individual roughness, secrets, … , bad or are these the incredients of living systems. Systems one can explore, build, identify with? Where to you want to live: in the irregular morbidity of Venice or in the regular straightness of Las Vegas?

Irregular morbidity of Venice, sure. But I was just surfing on the image this morning. Never been to Vegas, I’m sure it has cool corners. Making metaphors kiss their own feet and check how they look like doing so. Important (for me). Most of the time they look ugly, wich is not a nice view, but doing it is the only way to find out. The VOID. Interesting. Is it materia? no. We are on mental groud. It is the rock we’ll hammer loose in a month, it is another idea about how to get deeper into it, how to enlage our cave. We have a protocol of this mining activity, we have a record of it. Excavating we realize: sometimes it’s easy. The wall is like sand, a paintbrush does it, but sometimes you grab a pneumatic hammer, and doing so one of the other smurfs already tells you don’t try on the diamond wall, we decided not to go on there. I dunno. It’s ugly kissing its feet. What was the name of the page? Mpov, ah yes.

Define external redirect: JulesVerne IntelligenceSystems MetaDiscussion NoamChomsky MMmMMmMMMF IntelligenceSystem UnconsciousCommunication

EditNearLinks: WardsWiki PointOfView WikiCommunity WikiNodes WikiFarm MeatballWiki ChristopherAlexander MeatBall PageDatabase NeutralPointOfView

Languages: