--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)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