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*.
I'd say NPOV is more like a meta-POV. Unlike the meta-POV of choosing one specific POV and teaching it, NPOV treats all different POVs equally. It is on a whole different level that bias.
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.
What the textbook companies make is far from NPOV. What they have is a series of sometimes dubious facts all purporting to be correct. They also have unrelated facts in places to satisfy certain people. I don't think anyone wants Wikibooks to be like this.
I think DPOV (except where there is legitimate contraversy *within* the field), combined with a blurb about how this reflects one specific POV, would be the best. This blurb doesn't have to be long, and it can acknowledge that almost everyone agrees with it, but I still think it would be beneficial. Maybe it would just be online, not printed.
It seems like most people are advocating for NPOV for Wikibooks but really mean DPOV without the blurbs mentioned above.
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.
NPOV just means that the reader decides. This may not be what we need for Wikibooks, as I already said, but it is not that there is no POV. I have no idea where you came up with that NPOV means no text.
Further thoughts:
There is *no* way to escape the subjective bias of *any* author(s).
There is no way to create a wiki that covers all encyclopedic topics, yet we still aim for it. Similarly, we can escape *some* subjective bias, and we should do as much as we can.
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*."
I think that's about what he meant, but personally, I like his version better.
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.
OK, you've convinced me on that point.
[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 alternative arguments. This is called "teaching against the text". It's a technique that's widely used, at all academic levels]
...and Wikibooks should be very capable of that being done. (I love it when my teachers do that) LDan
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
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com