--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
No, to be unbiased, we need rebuttals for the individual points in articles, otherwise we are
using
a DPOV/SPOV.
I respectfully dissent. I think you should go read the NPOV policy again. It's more sophisticated that you give it credit for here.
--Jimbo
I've already read it, and imho it supporst my opinion on the matter.
To quote /you/ from [[Wikipedia:NPOV]]:
"2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. (I happen to believe this, by the way.) It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view."
The section "consequence: writing for the enemy" (the title explains my point alone) explains my view, but it is written confusingly, and I'd need to include the entire section in this post. Just go there and read it. I would edit it for clarity, but I think that would be unethical when refering to it.
If we purposly exclude other POVs, this effect will be even stronger. Exclusion of information is inherently POV, and if we can, we should keep it to a minimum.
In the Q/A section, the policy also clarifies there is no such thing as objectivity, but objectivity was assumed when talking about evidence.
My suggestion for all of this is that we make several appendicies, kept only online, that explain the reasons against, say, evolution, and for other theories such as intelligent design or creationism, in a textbook-like manner. That way, we can include enough information to be NPOV while still writing like a textbook. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com