I believe the consensus was that textbooks should be
written from the
"POV" of experts on the subject in question. So, for
example, a textbook
about evolution would not include a Kansas-style
disclaimer because the
creationism POV is largely irrelevant among experts
on evolution. It might
include a short segment about the controversy, but
would probably tend to
end with something like "There is virtually
universal agreement among
biologists that .."
Wikibooks could, in my opinion, be somewhat more
expert-centric than pure
NPOV would allow. In case of controversies, we
should try to decide
whether this is a legitimate controversy among
experts on the subject, or
whether we are dealing with "crackpot" theories
which have no place in
serious textbooks. On Wikipedia, we would always try
to include the
opposite POV, if only as a link to a separate page.
On Wikibooks, we may
sometimes have to decide to remove it entirely.
Regards,
Erik
Wikibooks is in no position to judge who is an expert
on the issues. As long as they've been published,
they're an expert. But that sounds somewhat
impractical. The solution is to have different
textbooks for different groups of experts emphasized,
and have more of a focus that group. This can be a
little bit POV towards that group (as I think) or
completely NPOV, just focused (as most other people
think), but this seems to be the general consensus of
most people here.
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com