Jimmy Wales wrote in part:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>Our current NPOV policy does not restrict
topical
>focus; that was my point.
Well, it does, though, doesn't it? If an
article
is about X, then it
is about X, not "X plus some other junk that
people
like to argue
about". Often we have to fix this by adding
some
qualifier to the
title.
Exactly. If all that mav means by "DPOV" is
�restricting the topic to the discipline at hand and
NPOV within that limit�,
then I agree with him about how the textbooks should
be written.
But I disagree that this isn't already just part of
NPOV.
In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of
biology,
then that article too is restricted to the displine
of biology.
This doesn't violate NPOV, and neither will the
biology textbook.
An important point is the existence (or potential
existence)
of other articles on parts of the discipline of
scientific creationism
(such as the attempts to pin down the dating of the
flood
by cross-referencing Genesis with geological data)
and similarly, the (potential) existence of a
textbook on that topic.
To be sure, we don't have those articles on
Wikipedia
and probably never will have that textbook -- but we
could.
The text in [[en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]
of course must be changed,
since it refers to a comprehensive encyclopaedia on
everything.
But this is /context/, not the /essence/ of NPOV.
-- Toby
Well, I think the encyclopedia should continue being
written as [[Wikipedia:NPOV]] and we should
differentiate between this more on-topic POV and
classic NPOV, by calling this new subset of NPOV
'DPOV'. Just for clarity.
-LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!