Talk:NORM-UK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Misunderstanding?

Alienus reverted my deletion of the description of NORM-UK's materials as 'accurate'. His edit summary stated "rv; it would be POV to claim their information is inaccurate. In any case, their stated goal is to be accurate, so we shouldn't hide this."

The stated objection is to an edit that did not occur. If you look at the diff, you'll see that it did not claim that their information was inaccurate (and I quite agree that it would violate policy for Wikipedia to do so). Simply stating that it is 'information' neither implies that it is accurate nor inaccurate, and is thus the more neutral of the two versions. The edit summary is thus perplexing.

Intending to find a direct quote, I have searched the web and have been unable to find anything indicating that their stated goal is to be accurate. WP:RS permits us to use their site as a source for information about themselves, albeit sparingly, and I can't even find anything there. I must therefore conclude that 'accurate' is nothing but the POV of the editor who originally wrote that paragraph. Jakew 10:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I should be most surprised if it were NORM-UK's intention to disseminate inaccurate information, and astonished if this were their stated aim. Does the word information not indeed carry overtones of accuracy? The statement that NORM-UK intends to distribute accurate information does seem to suggest that they see themselves as an antidote to misinformation or even disinformation (if the intended sense of the word be permitted) surrounding the issues with which they are concerned. That this is their aim is somewhat self-evident, since they would presumably not perceive a need to distribute information they consider to be accurate were it not for the existence of information they consider to be inaccurate. Perhaps somebody ought to contact them to ask if they intend their information to be accurate or not. I think the controversy related above was probably needless, but now that the question has been raised, I should rather favour saying that NORM-UK supplies accurate information, or at least information that they believe to be accurate. Not to do so might run the risk of permitting the interpretation that NORM-UK seeks deliberately to supply information that they know to be untrue. Perhaps a simpler solution would be to do away with information in favour of something less prone to controversy, such as material; e.g. "NORM-UK produces material that the organization believes to represent an accurate account of some of the facts pertaining to their area of concern".--Oxonian2006 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Contacting them is pointless, because we are limited to citing reliable, verifiable sources. Let's avoid speculating about their beliefs, and simply state that they provide information/material.

What we absolutely cannot do is to state that they provide accurate information. That violates WP:NPOV policy. Jakew 09:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see why using information provided by the organization itself would be so pointless, as long as it was cited in a particular way. I think it would be both a reliable and a verifiable source in the same way in which a person's autobiography might be considered reliable and verifiable. I am sure that the contributors to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography do not eschew autobiographical sources, but rather use them judiciously. I revised the wikipedia article on John Betjeman, and in doing so pointed out the interesting fact that in his autobiography Betjeman deliberately misleads the reader about aspects of his academic career. I then gave a more accurate account of his academic career based on two independent sources, mentioning that they disagree on details. I think it would be acceptable to say, "NORM-UK claims that its information is accurate". That would just be saying what NORM-UK says about itself.

However, I don't think this route is necessary because I entirely agree that there is no need to speculate about their beliefs. The article in fact reads absolutely fine to me, and I don't understand why anybody ever introduced the question of whether the word accurate should be inserted. I merely wondered if, now that the neutrality of the article had been needlessly brought under question, it was necessary for something to be added clarifying that no slur against the organization had been intended, and equally that no endorsement of the organization was implied.

I shall leave it unchanged, and if anyone is concerned about issues of neutrality, this page ought to show them that the point has been raised, and that the consensus so far is that the article is neutral.--Oxonian2006 17:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that seems fair enough.

I know it's hypothetical, but just to explain the policy: if we were to contact the organisation and they were to refer us to a published source, whether written by themselves or someone else, that would be ok. However, If they were to communicate information to us that did not appear elsewhere, we couldn't use it because it would be unverifiable. Similarly, using information from an autobiography is ok (though, as you note, one should be careful), but information obtained via email from the person concerned is not. Jakew 17:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)