(In a nature-documentary style:) "And this is where we will often find the "Jenhawk" Wikipedian, known for monstrously large topics... with the small bird as the favored Swedish collaborator Gråbergs Gråa Sång"
Capybara: Where has my favorite Swedish collaborator disappeared to? I can't see him. I need to ask him an important question: now that I am the "cattle tyrant", can I just order everyone to agree with me?
Gråbergs Gråa Sång offers this humble bird to be included on my mock coat of arms (along with my crocodile) and my very real motto "Illegitimi non carborundum" (don't let the bastards grind you down).
"Mainstream" scholarship is defined by critical method and what is verifiable historically. It's a method. It is not a point-of-view, or a philosophy, or a religious belief. It does not require belief other than a belief in the method itself.
I fully support the very high priority Wikipedia and my fellow editors place on neutrality. It's really quite an amazing thing when you stop and think about it - millions of people setting aside personal beliefs and opinions to uphold a standard that goes against natural tendencies.
For better — and for worse — we are all influenced by our culture, race, nationality, gender, and ethics. We are all historically situated. The good news is, that does not have to prevent neutrality and objectivity.
Take Olympic judges for example. They must overcome their national biases to be decent judges, and part of that is the presence of the other judges from whom they want the same thing. As historian Thomas L. Haskell explains, "even a polemicist, deeply and fixedly committed" can cultivate neutrality insofar as they are willing to enter into even a little empathy and treat others as they would like to be treated.
This is not naive; it is fully practical and doable.
I. Be wary of overconfidence.
"The more certain you are about an opinion, the more likely you are to employ confirmation bias... Sometimes the best time to expose yourself to opposing views is when you are most certain you already have all the information you need". [1]
"When you find evidence that contradicts your opinion, don’t assume you must either reject the evidence or abandon your opinion. Instead, consider modifying aspects of your original theory."
II. Confront all data
Test Yourself by looking for contrary evidence.
Leave behind the way we might prefer things to be and deal with the way things are.
Pure detachment is not possible, but, as economist Robert Solow says, “Just because a perfectly aseptic environment is impossible doesn’t mean one should conduct surgery in a sewer.”
Learn how to recognize if an author neglects facts, fails to acknowledge opposing arguments, or dismisses contradictory studies. Their bias doesn't excuse yours.
IV. Use the same standard for all
Seek Consensus; Submit your work to the unsympathetic. Listen. Peer reviews are worth their weight in gold.
V. No Personal attacks
Don't make them, don't let others get away with them. Contact an admin when needed. This is our online home, and we must all maintain it.
However, we must also be willing to listen to criticism and carefully consider it. We don't have to automatically agree - or disagree - but we should at least check it out.
Admitting error doesn't actually cost anything. All of us are more than any one mistake.
VI. Enjoy being here. This is a wonderful opportunity. A thousand blessings on Jimmy Wales!
Cheers to all my fellow Wikipedian's! and Happy editing!Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
These steps are taken from the work of Michael Licona, from the Forbes Coaches Council on leadership: 15 Steps You Can Take To Fight Unconscious Bias[2]; and from The Business Journal'sTips for overcoming and neutralizing your confirmation bias[3].
And here's a couple of FUNNY You-tube videos for those with a sense of humor:
[4] and [5]
This Wikipedian is a gentle editor and attempts to abide strictly by both the letter and spirit of NPA. They invite comments on their talk page whenever they fall short.