An analogy between the two following oppositions seems possible:

• The creative aspect of the editorial process vs the more straightforward aspect of UNDUE, etc. in Wikipedia.
• The methodological aspect of science and its logical aspect as described in philosophy of science.

Dominic Mayers ( talk) 15:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The essay is missing concrete examples of the problems that it wants to solve. I think the challenge is that, if we take non polemic cases, the difficulty does not show up and, if we take polemic cases, then it is not possible to agree that anything is a solution. Perhaps, what is needed is more than an example, but a story, a story that shows a polemic and a way out of it, a story that appeals to our deepest convictions about impartiality and the goal of an encyclopedia, which is to inform. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 19:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The essay emphasizes the importance of the editorial process and the fact that it cannot be reduced to the simplistic notion of UNDUE, BALANCE, etc. However, at some point it almost identifies the editorial process to inclusion of information and the discussion switches to inclusion in opposition to rejection. That might be a mistake that limits the applicability of the essay: principles about the editorial process per se can require that some kind of information is rejected. In other words, the essay should not condemn rejection of information, but the simplistic view that considers only UNDUE, BALANCE, etc. on an already proposed article. We can still maintain that the editorial process is about research of information, because principles that limit the search space are useful in a search. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 23:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I am not convinced that the notion of "weight" is so useful. I believe it is a wrong way of looking at the editorial process that Wikipedians must do. It only exists in the jargon of Wikipedia. It does not exist outside Wikipedia. It comes from "give due weight", but "give due weight" outside Wikipedia refers to the attention given to an argument, to facts, etc. It does not refer to the space attributed to the point of view or to anything like that. This is entirely an invention of Wikipedia. If we apply the usual meaning of "give due weight" to Wikipedia, it only means that we must give due attention to the view points in the sources. It does not say that the importance of the view points must be evaluated in terms of the space taken by them in the sources or using any other systematic method. It certainly does not say that the way to give due weight is to respect the same proportion in the article. This extension of the meaning exists only in Wikipedia's policy. Wikipedians don't even use that in practice. In practice, Wikipedians simply read the sources to understand how the different points of view are relevant. There is no systematic method to evaluate relevancy, except reading and understanding the sources. Moreover, most discussions among Wikipedians is whether a content should be included or not. There is no weight involved. Sure, we might mention "weight", because we refer to the policy, but most of the times, if not always, it is a yes/no question about a given content. If a concept of weight (different from its usual meaning outside Wikipedia in the expression "give due weight") would have been useful, it would already have been used outside Wikipedia. Besides, if we want Wikipedia to be a movement, as it claims to be, we should stop using our own jargon. The notion of "not taking sides", "give due weight", etc. are very well understood outside Wikipedia and these usual notions are good enough. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 06:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Perhaps one way to explain what is a more neutral point of view is scientific knowledge. Science can be described as a search for a more universal point of view on the physical aspects of reality. A more neutral point of view is a point of view that leaves asides personal feelings and opinions. So, it is the same concept as a more universal point of view. Attribution is only one pattern that helps obtaining a more neutral point of view. It works because people that disagree on a point of view might still agree that it is the point of view of a given person. However, reducing the search for a more neutral point of view to attribution indicates a misunderstanding of the general notion not taking sides and of a more neutral point of view. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 10:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Science offers neutral knowledge and this kind of neutral knowledge is fine in Wikipedia. But some knowledge have not reached that level of neutrality, but is yet notorious. We present them in a relativised manner. For example, instead of writing "P", we write "the offered arguments for P are ...". It is clear the dominant culture will want to present its favorite point of view as an absolute neutral knowledge. This is another reason besides complexity to reject the patterns toward a neutral point of view: they are often patterns of relativisation.

Actually, there is a big misunderstanding behind this negative attitude toward relativisation, because all good knowledge is strongly relativised. It's the other way around: the problem is a weak relativisation, for example, a relativisation to a single unimportant person. Consider the scientific knowledge "the Higgs particle is a massive scalar boson with zero spin, even (positive) parity, no electric charge, and no colour charge". The amount of context needed to even start to make sense of this is enormous. All knowledge, all truths, require a point of view. We tend to ignore the point of view when it can be shared. We tend to forget that a theory in science is the expression of a point of view. We say the theory is "true", but this is not a logical truth as when we already have a theory. Given a theory, some statements are true and others are false, but the theories themselves cannot all be truths within other theories, because this would create an infinite regress. Fundamentally, a theory is not true, but useful. It is a useful point of view that can be shared. A statement within a theory makes sense in the context of that point of view. This context needs to be provided, just as when we attribute an opinion. An opinion without the author is incomplete knowledge, just like a scientific statement without the proper context is incomplete.

So, the correct attitude is not that there is a relativisation, but that the relativisation is not the correct one and usually too weak. There is always a context to provide if the knowledge is to be valid neutral knowledge. Dominic Mayers ( talk) 07:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply