Jimmy Wales:
I think this is all a very misguided conversation, an
attempt to solve
non-existent problems with NPOV.
-------
Absolutely 100% correct.
Essentially, in taking this thread to its reductionist (or logical) extreme,
one would have to concede that *all* points of view, including NPOV, *are
points of view*.
We should note that going too far in the direction of NPOV - which is where
this thread is heading - is *exactly* the process engaged by commercial
textbook publishers in an attempt to please everyone. We need only look an
90% of the K-12 textbooks out there to see the kind of pedagogical
medoicrity that this approach has led to.
Thus, following this line of argument, obsessive NPOV (ultimately, within
the contect of the Wikipedia project) = *NO* point of view = no text or
texts worse than what we see from the commercial sector. That's where this
argument - accurately characterized as "misguided", is headed.
Further thoughts:
There is *no* way to escape the subjective bias of *any* author(s). However,
some authors, and books, work hard to present material in a way that
presents all sides *without* burdening the *purpose* of the book with side
issues that divert it from it's primary goal. I think that's the point that
Jimmy was making when he says "The point is, if there is legitimate
controversy, then the text itself need take no particular stand, but rather
present the conflict in a way that all parties can agree." With respect, I
would slightly alter Jimmy's end statement to read as follows: "....but
rather present the conflict in a way that all parties can *agree to
disagree*."
The goal of the Wikipedia textbook project is to take the best state
framework structures, and build content around those structures. The
curriculum specifics of those frameworks are *very* specific. They're meant
to be. One can be NPOV within the context of curriculum frameworks, but be
assured that working within any framework is POV. It's simply unavoidable.
Pick your poison.
In the case of textbooks built around state-approved frameworks, there *is*
an *implicit purpose* built in. That purpose is to create a tool (the
textbook) that will help a teacher present material in a way that the
groups - those approving the textbook frameworks in the first place -
'approve' of. Those groups have - to the best of their ability (with
respect, these efforts vary in quality from state-to-state) - *already* gone
through their own NPOV process!
In California's case, for example, the curriuculum frameworks committees
have sought the input of hundreds of teachers, topical experts, the general
public, educational researchers, cognitive development experts, private and
home schoolers, and many other groups to try to find ways to create a
comprehensive 'general' frameworks that 'work'. These frameworks are
comprehensive, and very thorough, but are they *perfectly* NPOV? Of course
not. They're general guides set up to help those creating textbooks to build
content that is thought-provoking, informative, and hopefully
well-presented.
[note: one of the great opportunities present to any teacher who doesn't
agree with what's stated in a textbook is to use that same textbook as a
foil in presenting elternative arguments. This is called "teaching against
the text". It's a technique that's widely used, at all academic levels]
Thus, per Jimmy's argument, I suggest we forge ahead with the best
frameworks out there, build good open source textbooks, and trust that as a
part of that process, those who want to add modules to counterbalance what
they see as bias in the frameworks can do so. This gives everyone the best
of open source. On the one hand we end up with *better* books that are based
on curriculum frameworks, as well as alternate materials to be used in
addition to, instead of, or in tandem with the approved curriculum framework
materials for those that want to point their educational efforts in a
different direction that those proposed by one or another state framework.
Sanford