Erik Moeller wrote:
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.
Well, my position is that what you're talking about is fully subsumed
under NPOV.
I think concrete examples can be very enlightening here, because at
this level of abstraction it's hard for us to be very clear about what
we mean "on the ground".
And assuming for a moment that we all here more or less agree on a
broadly humanist, scientific world view, an example running contrary
to that might be best.
But since I can't think of one, I'll keep it abstract. :-)
A book might contain in the preface a disclaimer, added only if needed
in response to someone who actually is complaining about the content
of the book, similar to this:
"This book deals only with accepted mainstream views of physicists.
There are certainly other views out there, ranging from creative new
innovations, as yet unproven, by the great scientists of tomorrow, to
purely crank theories that are unlikely to ever be noticed beyond the
feverish dreams of the creators. Although a book about such theories
would likely be stimulating and entertaining, they are beyond the
scope of this particular text."
"On controversies within mainstream physics, we endeavor to speak
neutrally, to merely present the controversy in a way that both sides
would consider fair. On controversies that lie beyond the edge of
mainstream physics, we endeavor here too to speak neutrally. The lack
of inclusion of some idea here is not a condemnation (or endorsement,
of course) of that idea, but rather an acknowledgement simply that the
idea is not sufficiently mainstream to permit us to include it within
our limited scope."
O.k., let me spin that around and make it about something else
entirely, to try to illustrate the same point again in a different
way.
"This book deals only with accepted mainstream views of Catholic
doctrine. We are here attempting to simply present in a neutral
fashion what Catholic doctrine is, and controversies within the
Catholic church, rather than addressing critiques and controversies
arising outside the Church. There are certainly other views out
there, and a book about such critiques and controversies would likely
be stimulating and entertaining, but those are beyond the scope of
this particular text."
"On controversies within the Church, we endeavor to speak neutrally,
to merely present the controversy in a way that both sides would
consider fair. On controversies that lie beyond the edge of the
Church, we endeavor here too to speak neutrally. The lack of
inclusion of some idea here is not a condemnation (or endorsement, of
course) of that idea, but rather an acknowledgement simply that the
idea is not sufficiently internal to the Church itself to permit us to
include it within our limited scope."
The point is that in a chapter in this book about homosexuality, it
would be perfectly appropriate to exclude secular critiques of the
Church's position, except to the extent that those critiques have
gained currency within Church or theological circles. The book would
simply not be _about_ that.
I think that such limitations of scope are perfectly NPOV, and also
resolve the issues about how to keep textbooks from having to
endlessly cover crackpot theories or extraneous controversies.
"On the ground", we'll have to look to specific controversies and come
to some consensus or compromise as to what we're doing. Probably the
most effective way to resolve such things is to negotiate and then
_firmly adhere_ to an overall statement of purpose for each book.
That way, particular controversies can be handled by asking "does this
meet the mission statement of the book", something that's easier for
partisans to agree upon, rather than "Should this book be about X or
about Y?" a question upon which opinions may legitimately vary.
--Jimbo