The Cunctator wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>Hum, I pretty much agree with that Meta-Wikipedia
article,
>but I don't see how the *definition* of NPOV is at fault.
>No article will ever perfectly satisfy the current definition,
>which is therefore an ideal, and I don't see any proposal
>for replacing that definition.
That's what "NPOV is an ideal" is.
What's what "NPOV is an ideal" is?
A definition? "an ideal" isn't a definition.
>Surely you don't want Wikipedia to state as
fact
>that George W. Bush is an awful US President!
>But if it doesn't, then it won't contain that piece of knowledge;
>it will at best only contain the knowledge that
>certain people hold that view for certain reasons.
>(Well, it might contain that piece of knowledge for a little while,
>but that would surely be quickly replaced by a more NPOV version,
>as we strive ever more for the elusive NPOV ideal.)
Exactly.
OK, so again we seem to agree on NPOV --
except that I can't see where this contradicts
the definition on [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
I mean, I get *everything* (it seems), and basically agree,
except the idea that it has to do with any *definition*.
I press because I do want to understand you,
and I sense that you have a point in using that word.
Please, define "neutral point of view".
(Or tell me where on meta or something this has happened before.
I can't find any extensive discussion involving you now,
but I'm sure that some must be preserved somewhere.)
-- Toby