--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
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! http://sbc.yahoo.com