--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)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