--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
The text in [[en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]
of course must be changed,
since it refers to a comprehensive encyclopaedia
on everything.
But this is /context/, not the /essence/ of NPOV.
I think that's right.
--Jimbo
No, to be unbiased, we need rebuttals for the individual points in articles, otherwise we are using a DPOV/SPOV. If you want to change Wikipedia to SPOV like I-E is, that's fine, but don't keep saying it's unbiased. Each article would convince the person to that POV unless the counterarguments are placed /in the article/, not on a seperate page. When people are looking something up, they don't say, "I think I'll look at all of the related topics, and all of the topics related to those topics, to get an unbiased view", they just look at that article! Plus, where would attacks on other theories go anyway if they are undirected towards a particular alternate theory? Do you think, by your logic, that [[Scientific creationism]] (which says it was invented for getting creationism in schools, btw) shouldn't have any reasons against it on the article, and that the reasons against should be on some other article like evolution or intelligent design? That's completely rediculous!
I really don't think we need a policy change in that respect. It's best to preserve the neutrality of each individual article. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com