討論:反法西斯主義運動 (美國)

頁面內容不支援其他語言。
維基百科，自由的百科全書

提前解釋一下回退[編輯]

@維基百科最忠誠的反對者：引題部分第一段最後一句的引用文獻1：「Antifa, a highly decentralized movement of anti-racists who seek to combat neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and far-right extremists whom Antifa's followers consider 'fascist'」，明確沒有「認定為是新納粹」（認定的是「法西斯」而不是「新納粹」），文獻2同樣沒有說是認定「But President Trump's election has rejiggered the antifa-versus-white-supremacist struggle.」，文獻3有提及認定，但後面跟的是「authoritarian movements and groups」，而且後面明確的寫了「aggressive opposition to far right-wing movements.」，最後一段明確有對右翼假旗行動和誤以為真的來源，麻煩多讀來源。至於學者，我不覺得這個描述有什麼大問題，因為引言段有總結的作用，下面明確有了記載各種學者的反應，MOS:WEASEL原文是「以下是幾種模稜兩可的表達方法，條目中有這種說法的話，則有檢討的必要，因為它可能隱藏著非中立的意見或是調查不足」，下面還有「請提供相關的支持證據」，這裡顯然是一個帶有參考文獻的事實陳述，為什麼要說其模稜兩可？--ときさき くるみ 2021年6月3日 (四) 01:16 (UTC)[回覆]

額外多說一下您最不認同的最後一段：

  • 很多另類右派和4chan使用者會在Twitter上假裝成安提法支持者，以進行假旗攻擊
    • 對應此前版本參考文獻18「They did so without realizing or noting an important detail: the Twitter and Facebook accounts are fakes, run with the aim of mocking and discrediting anti-fascist groups.……Bostonians who are involved with anti-fascist organizing warned about fake accounts several months ago and the people behind the fake Boston accounts gave an interview to walking avatar of bad ideas Gavin McInnes in April.……That these outlets are being duped by fake accounts is unsurprising.」（同一來源，足夠支撐目前條目內的敘述，不構成SYN）、參考文獻19「Far-right activists are using fake Twitter accounts and images of battered women to smear anti-fascist groups in the US, an online investigation has revealed. The online campaign is using fake Antifa (an umbrella term for anti-fascist protestors) Twitter accounts to claim anti-fascists promote physically abusing women who support US President Donald Trump or white supremacy.」（同一來源，足夠支撐目前條目內的敘述，不構成SYN）
  • 右派媒體有時會把該些惡作劇誤信為真，然後進行報導
    • 對應此前版本參考文獻18「They did so without realizing or noting an important detail: the Twitter and Facebook accounts are fakes, run with the aim of mocking and discrediting anti-fascist groups.……Bostonians who are involved with anti-fascist organizing warned about fake accounts several months ago and the people behind the fake Boston accounts gave an interview to walking avatar of bad ideas Gavin McInnes in April.……That these outlets are being duped by fake accounts is unsurprising.」（同一來源，足夠支撐目前條目內的敘述，不構成SYN），參考文獻22「And both right wing and Massachusetts media outlets took the bait, reporting on the claim, describing the group as identifying with the Black Lives Matter movement and quoting their purported motivations -- which included the claim that baseball itself is racist and that they were inspired by an ESPN column that described baseball as a "white man's game."」（同一來源，足夠支撐目前條目內的敘述，不構成SYN）。

我覺得以上這些足以證明大部分內容不構成SYN了，歡迎您找一個反例。--ときさき くるみ 2021年6月3日 (四) 03:08 (UTC)[回覆]

@維基百科最忠誠的反對者：您前一次回退說的是最後一段SYN，這裡已經列出了不SYN的理據，請您回應一下為什麼SYN。另，WEASEL中明確有一段是「在大中華地區等華人社群里，孔子被視作最偉大的思想家和教育家之一」，如果按照您的標準這一段恐怕也是黃鼬主義。--ときさき くるみ 2021年6月3日 (四) 11:23 (UTC)[回覆]

再補充一下SYN問題，SYN是指對已發表材料的總結並提出立場，英維的SYNTH不是什麼： 「如果你認為的SYNTH包括維基百科上90%的內容，那麼你對SYNTH的理解就是錯誤的。如果你認為閱讀表格的所有實例都是SYNTH，因為閱讀表格需要將表格中的條目與表格的標籤進行「綜合」，那麼你對SYNTH的理解是錯誤的。客觀的、直截了當的、對插圖的基本描述不是SYNTH。如果你對SYNTH的理解包括任何聲明，其來源從在線文章的一頁延續到下一頁，因為這涉及到從兩個不同的URL「總結」內容，那麼你對SYNTH的理解是錯誤的」[注 1]。「如果你想以「SYNTH」為由撤銷某些東西，你應該能夠解釋引入了什麼新的論點，以及為什麼它沒有得到來源的驗證。你不必把整個解釋放在編輯摘要中，但如果有人在討論頁上問起，你應該準備好比「當然是SYNTH，不然應該由你來證明他不是」更強的論述。舉證的責任很輕：只要解釋有什麼新的論斷就可以了，然後由其他編者來證明你的解讀是否合理。但在任何分歧中，最初的舉證責任都在提出主張的人身上，而關於某物是SYNTH的主張也不例外」[注 2]。另外，「SYNTH是指在對材料總結後進行原創研究的情況，不是指對材料進行總結這件事本身。2004年的時候，吉米·威爾士實際上反對的是在對材料進行總結後進行原創研究這件事：『在許多情況下，區分原創研究和總結已發表的文獻這兩件事，需要編者的深思熟慮』（In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment. [1]）。所以，對已發表文獻的總結這件事本身是被維基百科所允許的」[注 3]。 --ときさき くるみ 2021年6月3日 (四) 11:42 (UTC)[回覆]

參考資料

  1. ^ If what you consider to be SYNTH includes 90% of what's on Wikipedia, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong. If you consider all instances of reading a table to be SYNTH because reading a table requires "synthesizing" the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong. Objective, straightforward, and basic descriptions of an illustration are not SYNTH. If your understanding of SYNTH includes any statement whose source continues from one page to the next of an online article, because that involves "synthesizing" stuff from two different URLs, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong.
  2. ^ If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.
  3. ^ SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. In 2004, Jimbo Wales actually contrasted synthesis with original research: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment." [2] It seems clear that "synthesis of published work" was assumed to be part of the legitimate role of Wikipedia.
取自「https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:反法西斯主义运动_(美国)&oldid=81661813」