Larry Sanger joins Everipedia

[Mason]

Seeing as other encyclopedias (e.g. Infogalactic) have taken this attribution-free approach, I am curious if the importing/copying is done with a WMF/MediaWiki tool, and if so, if this tool provides an option to include attribution/article history with the content.

If the WMF/MediaWiki is providing an easy way for people to republish CC-licensed content without the required attribution, that's as big of a problem as the people who may use such a tool, IMO.

[Kingsindian]

Curious what folks here might have to say about Everipedia, which just signed on our old friend Larry Sanger to helm it.

Everipedia has been discussed here by many people. Use the "Search" function. One of the Everipedia admins also visited about a year ago and started a thread. There was some discussion of the CC license in that thread too.

[Renée Bagslint]

Side discussion: does anyone else see Larry’s repeated, failed attempts to beat Wikipedia at it’s own game as just plain sad?

I think it's more Dr Sanger's horrified realisation what a monster he helped to let loose on the world and desperate attempts to repair the damage.

[Bezdomni]

Assuming that there is no such credit, I'd really love to know why the WMF tolerates other encyclopedias stealing its contributors' contributions in such a way. Perhaps the WMF expects the individual editors to do something about it, one at a time?

lol... I could steal Sanger's left thumb and keep it hostage at Creolista until you get a satisfactory answer. ^^

As I understand it the scraping software is proprietary. It is not currently calibrated to preserve and display any of the authorship info for the text it has imported, that is for sure.

[Renée Bagslint]

What is being stolen here, if anything, is not the content but the credit. The WMF seems quite uninterested in protecting the volunteers' right to credit, at least against big companies like Amazon. Of course, they may find a small non-profit, especially one assocated with Dr Sanger, an easier target for bullying.

However, on checking an article I wrote on Wikipedia which has been copied to Everipedia, I notice that there is link to the Wikipedia article in the references. Does that satisfy the requirements of CC BY-SA 3.0? I Am Not A Lawyer.

[Bezdomni]

What is being stolen here, if anything, is not the content but the credit. The WMF seems quite uninterested in protecting the volunteers' right to credit, at least against big companies like Amazon. Of course, they may find a small non-profit, especially one assocated with Dr Sanger, an easier target for bullying.

However, on checking an article I wrote on Wikipedia which has been copied to Everipedia, I notice that there is link to the Wikipedia article in the references. Does that satisfy the requirements of CC BY-SA 3.0? I Am Not A Lawyer.

I created an article or two just to see how it worked. Since you don't have code access you use a visual editor which works pretty well. Referencing an article consists of copying a url to the page. (Adding a footnote requires making the connection to an already entered URL / media file.)

There are no authors listed in any reference list that I've seen whether they be Wikipedians (where it's admittedly hard) or journalists / PR agents / shkolarz. A reference without a weblink could probably only be accomplished by adding some sort of media file, because all refs must seemingly be available in digital form. There is no bibtex compatible reference template. ^^

[CrowsNest]

I can't see any such credit. But perhaps I'm just not checking in the right place.

Assuming that there is no such credit, I'd really love to know why the WMF tolerates other encyclopedias stealing its contributors' contributions in such a way. Perhaps the WMF expects the individual editors to do something about it, one at a time?

It's never been clear to me if it is even the WMF's responsibility. Their Terms do state that re-users of Wikipedia content must comply with license terms, but since they're not actually the authors of the content, what legal standing do they have to pursue anyone who violates the rights due to authors? It seems to my untrained eye that the only legal responsibility their Terms put them under is to ensure the content they host is compliant with license terms. In this respect, they appear to have no ability to force reusers to comply with their Terms, they are essentially for information only.

I'm sure if you contact them, they'd be willing to help, but I think the upshot of any request would-be merely them telling you what you have to do to make a complaint to ensure your rights are respected. At which point, I'm guessing you wouldn't actually bother, because you don't seem to even feel strongly enough about it to be sure of your rights yourself. It seems significant that while Wikipedia contains a lot of pages waffling on about what reusers "must" do, it contains no information for what licensees like yourself can or should do if they don't. Or none that I could locate in a reasonable time.

Ultimately, the reason these things never go anywhere, is because it's just really lame to be arguing over who gets credit for material that is commercially worth nothing, and can be redistributed and modified in any conceivable fashion, merely as long as you give credit, which in reality is as easy as just giving a URL to the Wikipedia page you copied.

Do you think such a thing adequately gives you credit for all the hard work you put into that page? Is that really what you want the WMF to go into battle for, on your behalf? I think they have bigger fish to fry, no? Such as for example ensuring the rights of people whose content finds its way into Wikipedia when it shouldn't, are similarly respected. According to Wikipedia's own figures, currently there are tens of thousands of potential violations. Maybe it should be a prerequisite that for any Wikipedian who wants to complain about an invalid re-use of their content, should first help close out an open Wikipedia copyright investigation.

Ultimately, anyone who willingly applies a Wikipedia license to their work, is essentially saying that in real terms, their work, indeed the very notion they are an author, is worth nothing to them. Expecting to be credited in the legally mandated fashion for your work on Wikipedia, is like expecting a biscuit for not pissing on the floor. Good practice for controlling the behaviour of dogs, not so much for humans.

[Renée Bagslint]

I think you're right that it is not the WMF's responsibility legally. However, it could be used as a lever. If enough contributors could be brought to believe, however wrongly, that the WMF was failing to do something that they should be doing, perhaps people would start to ask what it is the WMF do with all those donations, and why none of the benefit ever gets back to the people who contribute the content.

[CrowsNest]

Side discussion: does anyone else see Larry’s repeated, failed attempts to beat Wikipedia at it’s own game as just plain sad?

Only in the sense he keeps failing. There is something noble about the fact he clearly recognises Wikipedia has massive faults which completely undermine his original vision. This biggest fault of all being it would be impossible to try and fix it from within, even though the consensus based model should mean it is possible. On the talk page of Intelligent Design, he recently noted the complete failure of Wikipedians to understand, let alone comply with, his original visions of what NPOV is and how to achieve it. The actual policy as written still largely reflects it, the issue is how it is being enforced. The responses were classic Wikipedian. This is presumably why he now seems intent on fixing Wikipedia by replacing it. One of his other complaints is that the inmates are running the asylum, and the Wikipedia community is nothing but a giant troll factory, where sensible discussion among mature adults in an atmosphere of mutual respect, is unpossible. That's got to sting a bit, to someone in your position......

[Mason]

I hadn't noticed that there is a link back to the Wikipedia article as the first reference. While this arguably satisfies the attribution requirements in the case that the Wikipedia article still exists, it absolutely doesn't in the case that the Wikipedia article has since been deleted.

Take for example this article. It's copied from a since deleted Wikipedia article. Who wrote it?

Since Everipedia has more lenient notability standard one expects there will many more examples of such "attribution-orphaned" articles on their site.

[CrowsNest]

I hadn't noticed that there is a link back to the Wikipedia article as the first reference. While this arguably satisfies the attribution requirements in the case that the Wikipedia article still exists, it absolutely doesn't in the case that the Wikipedia article has since been deleted.

Take for example this article. It's copied from a since deleted Wikipedia article. Who wrote it?

Since Everipedia has more lenient notability standard one expects there will many more examples of such "attribution-orphaned" articles on their site.

AFAIK (and using Wikipedia's own practices as a guide), it is enough for Everipedia to be able to prove that url existed at the point in time they published it as attribution, to be in compliance. It would then be up to Wikipedia to figure out how they allow people to view the full author's list when they are asked for it, as they can surely be asked, given the irrevocable and immutable nature of these licenses.

[Renée Bagslint]

A good point. Even if the content is deleted, the attributions need to remain. The WMF is to blame! The WMF should do something!! (Actually, this is something the WMF might be legally responsible for, but then IANAL, and I Dont Care About The Legalities I Only Want To Use It As A Stick To Beat The WMF With).

[CrowsNest]

A good point. Even if the content is deleted, the attributions need to remain. The WMF is to blame! The WMF should do something!! (Actually, this is something the WMF might be legally responsible for, but then IANAL, and I Dont Care About The Legalities I Only Want To Use It As A Stick To Beat The WMF With).

Probably a job better suited to all those admins who seem to think they're empowered to speak for the WMF in all matters, particularly the Terms of Use. If they choose to interpret the Terms in this matter as requiring them to keep public records of all the authors of deleted articles, then they have all the powers they need to do that, no WMF involvement required at all. I'm guessing they won't, because such activities really hold no interest for them. There's nobody being beaten up, nobody being ritually humiliated, no glory for the cause, no career path to better things, and there'd certainly be no sexy barnstars created for it. You'd just be one of those sad sacks quietly working away on a necessary task, with no reward. And Wikipedia is already maxxed out in that regard, at about three admins.

[CrowsNest]

The Intelligent Design people have (unsurprisingly) quoted Larry Sanger's comment.

Hilarious.

Having all that leisure to volunteer in “editing” online encyclopedia articles might correlate with being retired, or a dedicated hobbyist, or it could correlate with being on the margins, someone with “problems with society,” “confused,” “wacked-out,” “unhinged,” even “insane.” I apologize if this sounds unkind. But high-functioning people — employed or with other serious responsibilities, with friends, families, community commitments, and more — are not ideally suited to be Wikipedia editors or to engage in the endless editing wars that go along with it.

You see that Wikipediots? Even believers in Intelligent Design have no difficulty in identifying a fatal flaw in your model.

[Poetlister]

The WMF does not own the copyright of individual contributors, except possibly WMF staff cting in their official capacity. I'm not sure if it has a locus standi to complain on behalf of the contributors; it certainly won't bother to fight for one unless it csn make money thereby.

[Renée Bagslint]

Using content without attribution is a breach of the Wikimedia Terms of Use 7g.

[Poetlister]

Using content without attribution is a breach of the Wikimedia Terms of Use 7g.

Yes, but how can the WMF enforce that? I doubt that these terms would stand up in court as being binding on the people behind Everipedia. Anyway, what legal remedies are there against such a breach? All the WMF could do is SanFranBan these people, if any of them other than Dr. Sanger have identifiable accounts.

[Earthy Astringent]

Outside of WO, today was my first sighting of someone linking to Everipedia. One Nicole Winberry, arrested and convicted for having sex with multiple students:

https://everipedia.org/wiki/nicole-winberry/

Seems that a photo has been floating around the internet that is *not* her is displayed in the article, to inform that this is *not* her. I couldn’t find any Everipedia policies about what constitutes a reliable source. This place is going to be a Wikipedia Wild Wild West. How long before it turns into Encyclopedia Dramatica with “hit” articles on unsavory Wikipedians?

[Poetlister]

How long before it turns into Encyclopedia Dramatica with “hit” articles on unsavory Wikipedians?

We must just hope that the people behind it are rather more moral than those behind ED.

[Earthy Astringent]

How long before it turns into Encyclopedia Dramatica with “hit” articles on unsavory Wikipedians?

We must just hope that the people behind it are rather more moral than those behind ED.

I for one can totally see Everipedia being used to target the obnoxious or annoying using the flimsiest of sourcing. During the Arbcom cases involving Eric Corbett and Li**tbreather (censored so as not to set off any Google alerts) the latter made herself one fine pain in the neck, as she did at pretty much every fora on the known internet that would listen. I forgot who posted a nude image and claimed it was Li**tbreather, but I do recall it was on some relatively obscure forum that only an obsessive seeker would find (and found it was). Imagine if Everipedia were around then — and was heavily indexed by Google. Instant drama article sourced to the workshop and talk pages of Arbcom. Drama God would be pleased.

[tarantino]

I forgot who posted a nude image and claimed it was ...

It was Scalhotrod (T-C-L), who's globally banned by the foundation.

[Earthy Astringent]

I forgot who posted a nude image and claimed it was ...

It was Scalhotrod (T-C-L), who's globally banned by the foundation.

Oh yeah, and they dragged their heels on that to boot. Cue the Benny Hill music, WMF.

[Randy from Boise]

I forgot who posted a nude image and claimed it was ...

It was Scalhotrod (T-C-L), who's globally banned by the foundation.

Now that guy was a piece of shit. And probably still is.

RfB

[Poetlister]

All of which is why no website should ever allow untrammelled posting by anyone in the world without massive controls. Does Everipedia have pending changes on every page? I suspect not, without checking.

[tarantino]

Novogratz's new fund, others invest $30 million in online encyclopedia

A fund launched last month by former macro hedge fund manager Mike Novogratz and global blockchain company Block.One led a group of institutions that invested $30 million in online encyclopedia Everipedia, Everipedia President Sam Kazemian said.

[Graaf Statler]

I am glad with every competitor. The only problem what remains is the Google dominance. Google only gives Wikipedia a change, and I concider this as unfair. I wrote a essay about this. (sorry, robot, the title has to be: Google, the axis of the Wikievil. As has two meanings in Dutch.) And at the end I came, I myself was also surprised, to the conclusion this is something Google has already been convicted for by the EU. De Europese Commissie is van mening dat Google de grote populariteit van zijn zoekdienst misbruikt om andere diensten een voorsprong te geven op de concurrentie. (The European Commission has the opinion, Google has misuses the popularity of its search service to give services a head start, so competition are in a backward position.) Ah, that is interesting. There is European jurisprudence. And is Wikipedia a service? Absolute for the european Code Napoléon judges.

To me it’s complete clear WMF is dancing on a legal volcano with it’s Google monopololism. And Google too. Because every citizen of the EU has the right to start online for free a procedure. Also about his privacy if that is violated. In every country of the EU is even a EU chapter to help you. So my advice to every european user of a other wiki like for instance Everypedia is to start a European procedure. Its complete for free and you can do that in your one language. And ask for advice at you local EU chapter.

Have for instance a look here. but there is one in every language of the EU. There is even a link inside were you can ask for help. Playing Russian roulette with with european rules what WMF is doing is a dangers game in Europa, you know..
It is really unbelievable were you can start a procedure for free in Europe, I already stared one at the ombudsman, Het Cidi, Het CBF, WMF gets a notice of default within a few days etc. Because border blasters don't belong in my country, everybody has to follow our law, and WMF too! There are no exceptions in our legal system, And money doesn't help them in our Europe because a citizens is protected by the law. Everything here is for free.

[tarantino]

Everipedia promotes paid editing by its employees.

Everipedia+ is a premium service offered to esteemed individuals and organizations who are looking for experienced wiki editors to create scholarly entries for themselves and their businesses. The program was launched in July of 2017 and is headed by Executive Editor Dave Liebowitz.

[Poetlister]

Obviously, "esteemed individuals and organizations" would not tolerste misleading articles. Anyway, they will be "scholarly entries", so they will be well-sourced and as far as possible unbiased. More Wikiversity than Wikipedia.

[Randy from Boise]

Paid editing and article maintenance by staff as part of the business model. Truly an innovation. Larry Sanger's momma must be proud.

RfB

[Zoloft]

... Larry Sanger's momma must be proud.

RfB

Why bring her up? She always speaks well of you.

[MjolnirPants]

On the talk page of Intelligent Design, he recently noted the complete failure of Wikipedians to understand, let alone comply with, his original visions of what NPOV is and how to achieve it.

As one of the participants in that (probably the one you're hating on), I can explain this "complete failure" in a single sentence: His vision is stupid.

If you want more than that, it's really not hard to understand. Reality is reality. There are no substitutions, no "your truth is as good as my truth," there is only one truth that we have named Reality, and no others. People tend to be in the habit of trying to find that truth, and in that service of that habit we discovered some things. One of those things is that systemic, methodical investigation gets you much closer to the truth than wild speculation and naval-gazing, which in turn got you closer to the truth than simply deciding what you wanted to believe and then trying to prove it.
The result of that discovery was that those people who use systemic, methodical investigative methods of finding the truth tend to get much closer to it than those who engage in wild speculation and naval gazing, who in turn got closer to the truth than those who decided what they wanted to believe and then tried to prove it. (duh.)
This had the (shockingly offensive, to some people) unavoidable consequence of investing certain claims about the truth (and by extension, certain people) with the quality of being right, and others with the quality of being wrong.
So if you want to educate someone in a way that's designed to give them access to the truth, you have to seek out those claims about the truth which are right and present those, obviously. But the fact that the wrong claims about the truth exists is something you have to inform them of as well, so you must also present those. So how do you do both, while actually educating someone?

You clearly label them right and wrong. That's how. Or if you prefer, you simply lay out all the facts, including the fact that certain claims are wrong, or that certain people were caught lying, or that certain arguments are fallacious.

And while I've seen it argued that Larry's vision -where you can't tell what the author believes- is a natural consequence of simply presenting all the facts in a neutral tone, that argument is phenomenally ignorant. Because every time I've asked someone making it for an example (with only ONE exception) of how it was being violated in a WP article, they pointed me to a statement in the article that a claim was "false" or "debunked" or "misleading". Except they left out the truth: that the claim in question was, in fact, false or debunked or misleading. 99% off the time, they didn't even try to argue that it wasn't. Hell, they usually admitted that it was a false claim, but nonetheless insisted that it was non-neutral for use to say so. Which is the predictable result of adopting a stupid principle: you make stupid claims.
I've yet to see a single coherent argument put forth to advance the notion that one can simultaneously treat false claims with the same respect one treats true claims with and still produce content that informs, rather than misinforms. And the reasons are obvious: because it's a stupid notion.
So Larry's "vision" of neutrality is just a stupid vision. It's based on idealism, not effective epistemology. It's unworkable for an encyclopedia. Imagine if we applied his standards to the article which cover the claims that the US government has been infiltated by reptilian extraterrestrials. Remember, according to Larry himself, his vision is that articles should be written such that no reader could tell which side of a debate the author took. (He stole this idea from journalism, but we'll let him pretend that it was his idea.) Can you honestly say that you would respect a project where you could read about those theories and not be able to tell whether the author believed them or not? I wouldn't. Because it undermines the very purpose of an encyclopedia.

[Bezdomni]

If you want to talk with Crow's Nest, you'll need to go over to WS. He says he is banned here; Zoloft said, I think, that he was muted. In any case, he can't reply.

I assume you know that. (off-wiki we're allowed to assume stuff)



But who knows, maybe Larry'll stop by.

[MjolnirPants]

If you want to talk with Crow's Nest, you'll need to go over to WS. He says he is banned here; Zoloft said, I think, that he was muted. In any case, he can't reply.

I saw that in another forum, but it was after I responded here.

But who knows, maybe Larry'll stop by.

That could be fun.

[Midsize Jake]

So Larry's "vision" of neutrality is just a stupid vision. It's based on idealism, not effective epistemology. It's unworkable for an encyclopedia. Imagine if we applied his standards to the article which cover the claims that the US government has been infiltated by reptilian extraterrestrials. Remember, according to Larry himself, his vision is that articles should be written such that no reader could tell which side of a debate the author took. (He stole this idea from journalism, but we'll let him pretend that it was his idea.) Can you honestly say that you would respect a project where you could read about those theories and not be able to tell whether the author believed them or not? I wouldn't. Because it undermines the very purpose of an encyclopedia.

I guess if you're basing your precepts on things like the Theory of Evolution, which at this point is really the Fact of Evolution, then sure. But what about the theory that Agent Cooper and Laura Palmer actually traveled back in time at the end of Season 3 and Laura screamed because she finally realized who she actually was?

I suspect that your idea of Wikipedia criticism may have been been formed by interactions with other Wikipedians, who often delight in strawman arguments and are not known for being especially open to outside criticism in general. The fact is, whether or not Wikipedia is capable of producing "neutral" article content in any given case has never really been in dispute. The problem is that WP editors tend to want to apply the same cookie-cutter "neutrality" standards to everything, when in reality that just isn't appropriate - there has to be some flexibility based on the subject, as difficult as that may be to achieve.

There are actually lots of subjects and topic areas where right vs. wrong hasn't been proven, and may never be proven, and it's not just on Twin Peaks, it includes some of the hard sciences, and yes, unfortunately, politics. The issue is, who determines which theories and explanations get the most emphasis and prominence, or even inclusion/exclusion in some cases? What are the ideological agendas and educational/experiential backgrounds of the people who decide these things? You have to allow for qualitative analysis and know when it's appropriate to do so, or not, as the case may be. We can look at talk pages to see the discussions involved, and that's good, but what's the deal with the participants in those discussions? They can get kind of overwrought at times, eh?

Moreover, I don't quite get what you mean at the end there - if an anonymous/unaccountable group of individuals has produced a genuinely NPOV article about, oh-let's-say a relatively no-huge-deal topic like the Oboe (T-H-L), and someone comes up with a theory as to who precisely invented the first modern oboe in 1725-ish or whatever... you're saying you wouldn't "respect" the article unless you knew whether or not the person who inserts that new (theoretical) information in WP actually believes it or not? That actually seems more hard-assed than the attitude most of our members have - even I'm more charitable than that, so... hopefully you're either too fixated on the ID/Creationism example, or I'm just misinterpreting you in some way.

That said, I think most of us have been pleased with your participation here so far, so I'm not really trying to upset you or "call you out" or anything. (Just so you know!)

[Poetlister]

There are many circumstances where we just don't know the truth. There are various views, some more plausible than others. It is the duty of Wikipedia editors to record the most prominent views and the arguments advanced for and against, but exclude nutcase views. Of course, to do so properly may require considerable expertise in the topic, not just the ability to parrot loads of sources that may or may not be reliable.

[MjolnirPants]

But what about the theory that Agent Cooper and Laura Palmer actually traveled back in time at the end of Season 3 and Laura screamed because she finally realized who she actually was?

Well, this is where I seem to agree with you that we use a different standards of neutrality. For issues such as the next version of "Who shot JR?", journalistic neutrality (writing so as to ensure the reader can't tell which side of an issue the author takes) works great. And I'm even okay with using a different standard (though not necessarily the same exact one we would use on articles about interpretations of fiction) for any question that can't be answered, or which hasn't yet been answered.
But in truth, those different standards would arise naturally if one applied the principle of always being as thorough and accurate as possible. In such cases, there's no right answer for the article to endorse, so it doesn't endorse one. Same thing with the question of the existence of God. We can't possibly know, and as unlikely as it may seem to an atheist, god is actually such a fundamentally simple concept that you can't discount it. Meanwhile, no matter how likely it seems to a theist, we've never found and might possibly never find the slightest shred of evidence. So the standard WP endorses (and which I also endorse) works well on those articles, it just looks very different.

But that's not what Larry suggested. Larry tried to put the editors who've worked on Intelligent Design (T-H-L) on blast for not using a standard that would demonstrably hurt the article. And it's really obvious that it would hurt that article and thousands of others. Imagine applying that standard not to something silly like the reptilians, but to something like the Murder of Seth Rich (T-H-L). We'd be doing real-world harm to a family, all while patting ourselves on the back for being so neutral that the world can't tell whether or not we believe some Democrat hired a hitman to whack him for getting ready to finally spill the beans about Hillary's child sex ring in a pizza shop basement.

There are actually lots of subjects and topic areas where right vs. wrong hasn't been proven, and may never be proven, and it's not just on Twin Peaks, it includes some of the hard sciences, and yes, unfortunately, politics.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think a lot of people, possibly including yourself, would be surprised at how many political questions do in fact have concrete, definitive answers, but which are kept purposefully obfuscated by groups with ideological motivations.
In many cases, (cough cough, global warming, cough cough) if you ask ten experts, you'll get one answer. You need to ask a hundred experts before you get two answers. But if you ask ten politicians, you'll get fifteen answers, from the first five and the rest will just tell you that it was a great question and then waffle on about how great 'Murika is, hoping you'll forget what you asked.
But yes: in cases where the answer is not clear, and where there might not even be a correct answer, we should not try to identify one. While I agree that different rules can be applied to different subjects, when it all boils down to it, it's all based on the same principles of "tell the truth as simply and completely as you can".

The issue is, who determines which theories and explanations get the most emphasis and prominence, or even inclusion/exclusion in some cases?

That's not actually an issue. The experts decide. We look first to academia to experts. If we can't find them there, we look to the public sector and single-issue think tanks (think tanks with more than one concern are invariably biased). If we can't find them there, we look to the private sector, for people who make a living doing this. Finally, we look to popular opinion. And each time we fail to find a group of experts, we reduce the weight we give to the expert's opinion. So academic experts agree on something? Carve it in stone and be done. Public sector and think tank experts agree? Tell the reader it's most likely true, and most experts think so. Private sector professionals agree? Tell the reader that it's what the pros all think, but don't take a stance yourself. Popular opinion? Give the statistics and stay the hell away from weighing in on the truth.

Moreover, I don't quite get what you mean at the end there

I'll respond to your example, but I just wanted to say that it was just me framing it in the terms Sanger used. I don't really care what the author believes, I'm just saying that if the WP article on that particular conspiracy theory read in such a way that I couldn't tell from reading it that it was just a bullshit conspiracy theory, I'd re-write it and put the author on blast for being a conspiracy theorist, or too waffly and chickenshit to stand up to them, at the least. I'm saying that when there is a clear right side, anyone reading the article should know at the end which side that is.

if an anonymous/unaccountable group of individuals has produced a genuinely NPOV article about, oh-let's-say a relatively no-huge-deal topic like the Oboe (T-H-L), and someone comes up with a theory as to who precisely invented the first modern oboe in 1725-ish or whatever... you're saying you wouldn't "respect" the article unless you knew whether or not the person who inserts that new (theoretical) information in WP actually believes it or not?

No. I'm saying that if such an article (about the Oboe with a mention of said theory) existed, I'd want to know not only the details of the theory, but whether that theory was almost certainly true, likely true, possibly true, unlikely to be true or almost certainly false.

I'm not really trying to upset you or "call you out" or anything. (Just so you know!)

You can never upset me by disagreeing with me. On some few things -creationism, post-modernism, whether or not Picard is a superior captain to Kirk (of-fucking-course he is)- I may be disappointed by people disagreeing with me, but never upset. Things that actually upset me are few and far between. I've got real life to worry about, so I'm not going to let the internet get me down.