Talk:Objectivity

Untitled

I don't understand what if anything is paradoxical about objectivity implying a single reality. Rather than paradoxical I've always found the one to imply the other. [email protected]

I don't like this approach at all. This page is in effect a disambiguation page, and should be merged with Objectivity (disambiguation), but under the name Objectivity. Angr/talk 13:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is a need to give an overview on the topic. There is a common thread running through all the articles, which need a bit more explination than is posible than with a disambig page. Yes it is only a stub at the moment, but could be expanded. Give it a day or so to see what others think. --Salix alba (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Angr. This page is repeating the general discussion about the concept of objectivity and the way to achieve it that already exists in objectivity (philosophy). It is totally artificial to radically separate, as done by this page, objectivity in sciences, objectivity in philosophy, objectivity in journalism, etc. In all these fields, objectivity means the same thing, although it is not carried on by the same methods and differs in grade. But it is a difference of grade, not of nature. What would philosophy have to talk about if it wasn't to talk about non-philosophical things? This unilateral move should be, i think, reversed, and this article merged with objectivity (disambiguation). The "common thread" should be discussed on the philosophy page, as to have a serious place to unite discussions about objectivity. Lapaz 19:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be merged with the disambiguation page for objectivity. However: Lapaz is once again confusing many issues and missing several points. Objectivity in philosophy is nothing like objectivity in journalism. See the talk page at objectivity (philosophy) where he/she has littered the page with comments that show a complete lack of understanding about the concept, and the section on ethics in that article. "Neutral point of view" is to imply a meeting ground, or half way point. This is not the case in philosophy where philosophers may have their own idea on objectivity, and it is especially true in ethics, where subjectivism (schools of thought) may assert an objectivity that is not a neutral point of view. Neutrality is not to assert a point of view. Lapaz's former attempt to integrate all notions of objectivity at "Objectivity (philosophy)" was confusing, badly botched, and a total failure, showing little knowledge of or respect for what objectivity in philosophy is. Amerindianarts 22:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bad, ambiguous writing

I agree with all the points above, and would like to raise a rather minor one. The first sentence of the journalism section is abominable. It is grammatically incorrect and just plain difficult to understand.

definately needs revision.

The bit by Michael Hardy is much better than what Amerindianarts has replaced it with. I can no longer even follow it really.

You are absolutely right about the journalism entry. As for the bit by Michael Hardy, if you are referring to the definition of philosophy as a relation between subject and object which I replaced, then you too are missing the point about objectivity in philosophy (see my comment above). To define this concept in terms of the relation is an extreme oversimplification. Many theories in ethics do not equate what is "not objective" with the subjective. They are simply not opposed. Amerindianarts 22:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the objective is not necessarily what is not subjective, e.g. ethical subjectivism. Amerindianarts 22:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overview section

Was deleted for the same reason given for its addition. Paragraph begins with "Most", which is a Wiki "weasel" word considered POV. The suggested format for this article is different fields by section, linking to main articles where the reader can determine their own "overview". This conforms to an "objective approach". Amerindianarts 15:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia objectivity.

I am putting this here because I don't know where to turn to elsewhere. Where can I discuss Wikipedia's objectivity without being blocked out?

I have contributed to Swedish Wikipedia with editing and contribution, but now some of the Swedish group has decided to block me entirely from uttering any more words on Wikipedia, this without me being able to defend myself, or even find out exactly why I was blocked out. How objective can Wikipedia be if they are shutting down their users from discussion about what is right and wrong? And this in their own page!!! I am not allowed to discuss my situation in my own personal page that I am logged in.

I hope this is only a symptom of the Swedish section of Wikipedia. But at least I want to know what I have done wrong, that is the least Wikipedia worldwide owns me.

So if this is the wrong place to discuss this, then please point me to the right direction. One of the users in Swedish Wikipedia said that I should turn to wp:kaw but I have also been blocked out from that page from at least one "zealous" administrator in Sweden.

I thought Wikipedia was about a democratic and scientific process, but if one administrator has that much power, can we see Wikipedia as a democratic and scientific source in the internet?JonnyJJS (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]