----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Ehrenberg"
There is no way to create a wiki that covers all
encyclopedic topics, yet we still aim for it.
Similarly, we can escape *some* subjective bias, and
we should do as much as we can.
-------
That was my point. So, moving forward from that, let's do it. Otherwise, we
will end up contemplating our respective NPOV navels. :)
Sanford
> > Absolutely 100% correct.
> >
> > Essentially, in taking this thread to its
> > reductionist (or logical) extreme,
> > one would have to concede that *all* points of view,
> > including NPOV, *are
> > points of view*.
>
> I'd say NPOV is more like a meta-POV. Unlike the
> meta-POV of choosing one specific POV and teaching it,
> NPOV treats all different POVs equally. It is on a
> whole different level that bias.
> >
> > We should note that going too far in the direction
> > of NPOV - which is where
> > this thread is heading - is *exactly* the process
> > engaged by commercial
> > textbook publishers in an attempt to please
> > everyone. We need only look an
> > 90% of the K-12 textbooks out there to see the kind
> > of pedagogical
> > medoicrity that this approach has led to.
> >
> What the textbook companies make is far from NPOV.
> What they have is a series of sometimes dubious facts
> all purporting to be correct. They also have unrelated
> facts in places to satisfy certain people. I don't
> think anyone wants Wikibooks to be like this.
>
> I think DPOV (except where there is legitimate
> contraversy *within* the field), combined with a blurb
> about how this reflects one specific POV, would be the
> best. This blurb doesn't have to be long, and it can
> acknowledge that almost everyone agrees with it, but I
> still think it would be beneficial. Maybe it would
> just be online, not printed.
>
> It seems like most people are advocating for NPOV for
> Wikibooks but really mean DPOV without the blurbs
> mentioned above.
>
> > Thus, following this line of argument, obsessive
> > NPOV (ultimately, within
> > the contect of the Wikipedia project) = *NO* point
> > of view = no text or
> > texts worse than what we see from the commercial
> > sector. That's where this
> > argument - accurately characterized as "misguided",
> > is headed.
>
> NPOV just means that the reader decides. This may not
> be what we need for Wikibooks, as I already said, but
> it is not that there is no POV. I have no idea where
> you came up with that NPOV means no text.
> >
> > Further thoughts:
> >
> > There is *no* way to escape the subjective bias of
> > *any* author(s).
>
There is no way to create a wiki that covers all
encyclopedic topics, yet we still aim for it.
Similarly, we can escape *some* subjective bias, and
we should do as much as we can.
>
> > However,
> > some authors, and books, work hard to present
> > material in a way that
> > presents all sides *without* burdening the *purpose*
> > of the book with side
> > issues that divert it from it's primary goal. I
> > think that's the point that
> > Jimmy was making when he says "The point is, if
> > there is legitimate
> > controversy, then the text itself need take no
> > particular stand, but rather
> > present the conflict in a way that all parties can
> > agree." With respect, I
> > would slightly alter Jimmy's end statement to read
> > as follows: "....but
> > rather present the conflict in a way that all
> > parties can *agree to
> > disagree*."
> >
> I think that's about what he meant, but personally, I
> like his version better.
>
> > The goal of the Wikipedia textbook project is to
> > take the best state
> > framework structures, and build content around those
> > structures. The
> > curriculum specifics of those frameworks are *very*
> > specific. They're meant
> > to be. One can be NPOV within the context of
> > curriculum frameworks, but be
> > assured that working within any framework is POV.
> > It's simply unavoidable.
> > Pick your poison.
> >
> > In the case of textbooks built around state-approved
> > frameworks, there *is*
> > an *implicit purpose* built in. That purpose is to
> > create a tool (the
> > textbook) that will help a teacher present material
> > in a way that the
> > groups - those approving the textbook frameworks in
> > the first place -
> > 'approve' of. Those groups have - to the best of
> > their ability (with
> > respect, these efforts vary in quality from
> > state-to-state) - *already* gone
> > through their own NPOV process!
> >
> > In California's case, for example, the curriuculum
> > frameworks committees
> > have sought the input of hundreds of teachers,
> > topical experts, the general
> > public, educational researchers, cognitive
> > development experts, private and
> > home schoolers, and many other groups to try to find
> > ways to create a
> > comprehensive 'general' frameworks that 'work'.
> > These frameworks are
> > comprehensive, and very thorough, but are they
> > *perfectly* NPOV? Of course
> > not. They're general guides set up to help those
> > creating textbooks to build
> > content that is thought-provoking, informative, and
> > hopefully
> > well-presented.
>
> OK, you've convinced me on that point.
> >
> > [note: one of the great opportunities present to any
> > teacher who doesn't
> > agree with what's stated in a textbook is to use
> > that same textbook as a
> > foil in presenting alternative arguments. This is
> > called "teaching against
> > the text". It's a technique that's widely used, at
> > all academic levels]
> >
> ...and Wikibooks should be very capable of that being
> done. (I love it when my teachers do that)
> LDan
>
> > Thus, per Jimmy's argument, I suggest we forge ahead
> > with the best
> > frameworks out there, build good open source
> > textbooks, and trust that as a
> > part of that process, those who want to add modules
> > to counterbalance what
> > they see as bias in the frameworks can do so. This
> > gives everyone the best
> > of open source. On the one hand we end up with
> > *better* books that are based
> > on curriculum frameworks, as well as alternate
> > materials to be used in
> > addition to, instead of, or in tandem with the
> > approved curriculum framework
> > materials for those that want to point their
> > educational efforts in a
> > different direction that those proposed by one or
> > another state framework.
> >
> > Sanford
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>
http://shopping.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l(a)wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l