Jimbo wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
The reason why our encyclopedias have to be NPOV is because our audience is a general one. The reason why our textbooks have to be DPOV is because our audience is very focused (the biology student, for example) and we need to bring that student through the material in a logical and efficient way.
Hmmm, don't be so quick to dismiss NPOV in this context. Consider:
- Within various disciplines there
are legitimate and ongoing disputes of which students should be made aware.
Yes, exactly. But our current NPOV policy states that we should include all major viewpoints in a neutral manor (notice the lack of focus). This makes perfect sense in an general focus encyclopedia but doesn't make much sense in a textbook. I was planning all along to take the NPOV text and make some minor qualifications in reference to the scope under which the new policy (DPOV) would operate.
- If "outside" views are likely to
be encountered by students, then students should be made aware of them, including the weakness in their arguments.
It depends on the focus of the particular course you are writing for. An intro class in biology shouldn't spend too much time defending the underlying premise that modern biology is founded on (namely, evolution). There is a great deal of material to get through and therefore the arguments of creationism needn't be given much space or much credibility in such a textbook. However, if we can figure out how to organize chapters into modules then we can potentially create a very wide-foccused (and huge) textbook reference edition on all aspects of biology (including many counter-arguments to evolution and alternate interpretations of other aspects). That way instructors would be able to assemble textbooks from these modules into a variety of different configurations with each having a different emphasis (there would have to be a core set of modules that would form the foundation and framework of the textbook though).
Same thing is true for a section of a medical textbook on abortion ; we leave out most of the history and the different political views on the subject and just talk about the procedure itself and maybe have a single paragraph at the end sating something about access to the procedure and that risks doctors face when they choose to specialize in this area.
Right, but that's not POV-editing, that's just restricting topical focus. Here's how to tell -- an article which describes the procedure neutrally (and in medical detail, say) could be agreed upon by all reasonable people, regardless of their political or ethical views on the matter.
Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical focus; that was my point. It reads in part "A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view." Simply replacing "encyclopedia" with "textbook" will not do for a textbook editing policy. If NPOV (as written) were applied to the evolution chapter of the above biology textbook example then we would have to present creationism viewpoints on an equal footing with the viewpoints of biologists. This is not acceptable when trying to explain evolution in a biology textbook because no serious biologist gives any credence to anti-evolution ideas. But NPOV can and should be applied to the major viewpoints that exist from within the biological sciences. There could still be optional modules that deal with the viewpoints of society as a whole - the larger debate (so that the same textbook could be used in a class that deals with those types of issues). The core modules need to be very specific in focus, though. Otherwise students won't know what to think (yes, part of education is indoctrination into the POV of a discipline).
So yes, we can write about the current understanding of what evolution is and how it is theorized to operate but we cannot mix that with creationism viewpoints in the same module. So a modified NPOV ("DPOV") would need to operate in a compartmentalized fashion; within a core module it operates from within the context of whatever discipline the textbook is being written for; but in an optional module it can operate with a wider focus (although most optional modules are going to be more detailed treatments of certain topics raised in a core module). In short, the goals of what each module needs to do need to be focused. That requires restricting NPOV to that context.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
It depends on the focus of the particular course you are writing for. An intro class in biology shouldn't spend too much time defending the underlying premise that modern biology is founded on (namely, evolution).
Sure, I agree with that.
It's perhaps subtle, but the point of NPOV in this context is just that a creationist could read the entire book on biology and agree that it's a fair presentation *of biology*, even if they don't agree that current biologica science is a valid description *of reality*.
Usually, this is just a matter of a few words here and there.
Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical focus; that was my point.
Well, it does, though, doesn't it? If an article is about X, then it is about X, not "X plus some other junk that people like to argue about". Often we have to fix this by adding some qualifier to the title.
As an example, consider [[Christian views on homosexuality]]. If that article is done properly (and I didn't read it just now, so I don't have an opinion), then both fundamentalist Christians and their opponents should be able to read the article and say "O.k., that's a fair presentation of the topic."
If NPOV (as written) were applied to the evolution chapter of the above biology textbook example then we would have to present creationism viewpoints on an equal footing with the viewpoints of biologists.
No, I think this is a common misconception about NPOV, but that isn't the way I see it at all. The topic of the chapter on evolution in the science book is not "evolution and everyone's opinion about it". The topic is "scientific consensus views on evolution". Such a chapter may (and likely should) include a paragraph to indicate that other views, religious views, exist, but that's not the topic of _this_ book.
Restricting focus to the topic of interest is perfectly legitimate and falls within the scope of NPOV, rather than being an addition *to* NPOV.
Remember the big argument about "communist state"? Part of the problem there was that the two sides were talking past each other as to what the article was *about*. Was it "everything good and bad about communist countries"? Or was it "the political science definition of the term 'communist state'"?
That's similar. It's not POV to talk about bad things that happened in communist countries. And it's not POV to exclude such talk in an article that's actually about something else, namely "how political scientists define this term". Both can be NPOV, and yet, both can be inappropriate for articles within a particular scope of interest.
The real acid test is this: could an honest creationist read our idealized biology text and come away saying "Yup, that was a good book about what scientists believe about biology. I have a greater understanding of their theory now. I would have preferred a book about something else, but this book is a fair and honest and accurate treatment of the subject."
Can this be achieved without contortion or weaselly soft-pedalling? I think so.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
It depends on the focus of the particular course
you
are writing for. An intro class in biology
shouldn't
spend too much time defending the underlying
premise
that modern biology is founded on (namely,
evolution).
Sure, I agree with that.
But, if you just assume the validity of the subject matter, you are stepping into DPOV. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
It's perhaps subtle, but the point of NPOV in this context is just that a creationist could read the entire book on biology and agree that it's a fair presentation *of biology*, even if they don't agree that current biologica science is a valid description *of reality*.
Yes, but to say that, you would need an introduction explaining explicitly that this attempts to outline biology, not reality. Otherwise it is assumed that this is a discription of reality, as most books are. But it wouldn't be wise to include such an introduction, for obvious reasons.
Usually, this is just a matter of a few words here and there.
... and obfuscation of the entire text. It'll sound like we are describing an imaginary world or that we are uncertain of everything, both bad for textbooks.
Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical focus; that was my point.
Well, it does, though, doesn't it? If an article is about X, then it is about X, not "X plus some other junk that people like to argue about". Often we have to fix this by adding some qualifier to the title.
Perhaps other people's views could go in an apendix to create a NPOV.
As an example, consider [[Christian views on homosexuality]]. If that article is done properly (and I didn't read it just now, so I don't have an opinion), then both fundamentalist Christians and their opponents should be able to read the article and say "O.k., that's a fair presentation of the topic."
The thing is that that page doesn't exist. It doesn't have a place in Wikipedia. We might right that at [[homosexuality]] or possibly [[christianity]], but wikipedia doesn't write articles like this. And both of those articles contain the rebuttals. That was one of the reasons that Fred branched to make I-E. We don't do this with NPOV, and you're thinking of DPOV/SPOV. (come to think of it, DPOV=SPOV)
If NPOV (as written) were applied to the evolution chapter of the above biology textbook example then we would have to
present
creationism viewpoints on an equal footing with
the
viewpoints of biologists.
No, I think this is a common misconception about NPOV, but that isn't the way I see it at all. The topic of the chapter on evolution in the science book is not "evolution and everyone's opinion about it". The topic is "scientific consensus views on evolution".
What consensus? There is no such consensus, just a majority view.
Such a chapter may (and likely should) include a paragraph to indicate that other views, religious views, exist, but that's not the topic of _this_ book.
Restricting focus to the topic of interest is perfectly legitimate and falls within the scope of NPOV, rather than being an addition *to* NPOV.
No, that is DPOV. You're describing DPOV. A diciplinary point of view restricts the focus to the topic of interest. DPOV is reasonable, but biased because of a lack of information, and you don't have to keep misusing the jargon.
Remember the big argument about "communist state"? Part of the problem there was that the two sides were talking past each other as to what the article was *about*. Was it "everything good and bad about communist countries"? Or was it "the political science definition of the term 'communist state'"?
I still disagree with that decision, which, I guess, weakens my argument.
That's similar. It's not POV to talk about bad things that happened in communist countries. And it's not POV to exclude such talk in an article that's actually about something else, namely "how political scientists define this term". Both can be NPOV, and yet, both can be inappropriate for articles within a particular scope of interest.
The real acid test is this: could an honest creationist read our idealized biology text and come away saying "Yup, that was a good book about what scientists believe about biology. I have a greater understanding of their theory now. I would have preferred a book about something else, but this book is a fair and honest and accurate treatment of the subject."
Yes, but if the creationist doesn't agree with it as a representation of reality, which is always assumed (and a few words couldn't change in the minds of most), the creationist will still say, "I disagree with that book. If we decended from monkeys, why are they still there? [classic creationist argument] This book should adress that."
Can this be achieved without contortion or weaselly soft-pedalling? I think so.
--Jimbo
Possibly, but you have to admit that it is DPOV, not NPOV. No one wants a book that has no application in reality, only vague "biology". We want biology for use in the real world, and that assumes that biology is true. That is how textbooks work. But if we still wanted to be NPOV, we wouldn't assume that biology applies only in biology-land, we'd make arguments against biology for the real world in a seperate section.
-LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
It depends on the focus of the particular course you are writing for. An intro class in biology shouldn't spend too much time defending the underlying premise that modern biology is founded on (namely, evolution).
I wrote:
Sure, I agree with that.
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
But, if you just assume the validity of the subject matter, you are stepping into DPOV. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Well, you shouldn't "just assume the validity" -- you should set the context of what this information is. I think this point is really subtle, but really important.
At one point, a textbook teaching about the Earth and the Sun might say "The Sun revolves around the Earth". Bad move to say that. Better to say "Current scientific consensus is that the evidence outlined in this chapter suggests that the Sun revolves around the Earth."
That's NPOV in action. It's writing things so that even people who disagree on the substantive matter can agree that it's a valid presentation.
So Copernicus could point to the first one and say: "That's just plain wrong." And we know today that it is wrong.
But he'd have to say of the NPOV version, "Well, this presentation is fair, but I disagree with the current scientific consensus described therein."
Yes, but to say that, you would need an introduction explaining explicitly that this attempts to outline biology, not reality. Otherwise it is assumed that this is a discription of reality, as most books are. But it wouldn't be wise to include such an introduction, for obvious reasons.
I think it would be wise, actually. You have to write it a bit more carefully than that, of course. And part of it is just _infused_ into the final product. Throughout the book, you refer to authorities, to scientific consensus where appropriate, etc. You don't say "Evolution is true" -- you say "Modern biologists are in virtually unanimous agreement that the broad outlines of evolutionary theory are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence."
Usually, this is just a matter of a few words here and there.
... and obfuscation of the entire text. It'll sound like we are describing an imaginary world or that we are uncertain of everything, both bad for textbooks.
No, it need not sound like either, and -- done properly -- it's an actually a good way to sound *certain*, because we write only things about which we *are* certain. "Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium says that..." Well, we may not be sure if all the details of punctuated equilibrium are true, but we are sure what Stephen Jay Gould said, and what evidence he adduced for his theory, and what critics said.
Respect for the reader entails simply laying out all the facts uncontroversially, and allowing the reader to draw the appropriate conclusions.
As an example, consider [[Christian views on homosexuality]].
[...]
The thing is that that page doesn't exist. It doesn't have a place in Wikipedia. We might right that at [[homosexuality]] or possibly [[christianity]], but wikipedia doesn't write articles like this.
Actually, that article does exist. That's why I picked it as an example:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_of_homosexuality
My typo ('on' rather than 'of') misled you, I'm sure.
What consensus? There is no such consensus, just a majority view.
Actually, there's a very strong consensus on a lot of things, and majority views on some things. But even there, there is a consensus view on what the majority views are.
Consider "Theory A" and variants "Theory A-1" and "Theory A-2".
"Theory A" is accepted by virtually all scientists and educated people. That's a consensus. But when we get down to details, down to A-1 and A-2, opinions vary. There's a majority opinion, and a minority opinion. Sometimes these will have roughly the same status.
Well, that's not a problem for NPOV. NPOV just presents it all this way: "Theory A is scientific consensus. Scientists are divided, however, on the details of A-1 versus A-2, both of which we will describe in detail."
No, that is DPOV. You're describing DPOV.
No, I'm describing NPOV as I understand it. I made it up, so I get to say what it means. :-)
What I'm saying is that it's a big misconception to think that an NPOV textbook treatment of biology has to include, as if equally valid, the views of scientists and creationists. It doesn't. It is not _bias_ to restrict our focus to a particular topic.
A diciplinary point of view restricts the focus to the topic of interest. DPOV is reasonable, but biased because of a lack of information, and you don't have to keep misusing the jargon.
There's absolutely no reason for a textbook to have to be biased. If a biology text doesn't cover the Major League pennant race, that's not bias. And it's not bias for a biology text to not cover the creationism versus evolution debate. In both cases, that's not what the book is about.
Of course it's very possible for a biology text to be biased on these matters. What I'm saying is: it's not necessary. It's not necessary to introduce bias in order to restrict topic. You just restrict the topic, you handle points of intersection thoughtfully and fairly, and there you go.
Remember, NPOV is about getting consensus between potentially warring factions. If your biology text is written properly, then an honest creationist will accept it.
Yes, but if the creationist doesn't agree with it as a representation of reality, which is always assumed (and a few words couldn't change in the minds of most), the creationist will still say, "I disagree with that book. If we decended from monkeys, why are they still there? [classic creationist argument] This book should address that."
And a baseball fan might lament the lack of coverage of that issue, as well, right? My point is, NPOV doesn't require us to write a book about everything that everyone will love equally. But it does require us to write carefully about things that even opponents can agree on.
Possibly, but you have to admit that it is DPOV, not NPOV.
No, I insist exactly the opposite. This is exactly what NPOV is all about, and it applies 100% to textbooks.
No one wants a book that has no application in reality, only vague "biology". We want biology for use in the real world, and that assumes that biology is true. That is how textbooks work. But if we still wanted to be NPOV, we wouldn't assume that biology applies only in biology-land, we'd make arguments against biology for the real world in a seperate section.
Well, I think you've completely misunderstood what I meant.
Let me jump to a different example. I'm not sure that it's better, but hopefully it'll open up a different way of looking at this.
As a hobby, I like to read Supreme Court cases, and about abstract legal reasoning generally. Politically, I'm what most people would call libertarian, and like lots of libertarians, I believe in the morality of individual rights.
So for any controversial issue, there's two ways to approach it. I can approach it from the point of view of individual rights theory. Or I can approach it from the point of view of legal reasoning, of how I think the Constitution ought to be read.
These two approaches don't always come up with the same result.
Even so, I can read a brilliant legal argument and say "Yes, I agree with that. That is what the constitution says, and under the legal principles at work, that's the right answer in the law." But I can still think that the constitution ought to be changed in certain ways.
Or, it can go the other way. I like the outcome of Roe v. Wade, and I think that there is an individual right to early term abortion. And yet, I think that Roe v. Wade is a bad constitional decision, because it finds principles in the constitution that aren't there, using reasoning that makes little sense.
You with me so far?
Well, now imagine an article about Roe v. Wade written by someone with whom I disagree on matters of individual rights. I think that there is a right, and the other person thinks there is not. But the article simply isn't about that. The article is about the reasoning used in Roe v. Wade, and the question of whether or not it's sound constitutional law.
I could very easily end up agreeing with the article, if it's well-written and NPOV, because the issues are separate.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote in part:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical focus; that was my point.
Well, it does, though, doesn't it? If an article is about X, then it is about X, not "X plus some other junk that people like to argue about". Often we have to fix this by adding some qualifier to the title.
Exactly. If all that mav means by "DPOV" is �restricting the topic to the discipline at hand and NPOV within that limit�, then I agree with him about how the textbooks should be written. But I disagree that this isn't already just part of NPOV.
In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of biology, then that article too is restricted to the displine of biology. This doesn't violate NPOV, and neither will the biology textbook. An important point is the existence (or potential existence) of other articles on parts of the discipline of scientific creationism (such as the attempts to pin down the dating of the flood by cross-referencing Genesis with geological data) and similarly, the (potential) existence of a textbook on that topic. To be sure, we don't have those articles on Wikipedia and probably never will have that textbook -- but we could.
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.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:Jimmy Wales wrote in part:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical focus; that was my point.
Well, it does, though, doesn't it? If an article is about X, then it is about X, not "X plus some other junk that people like to argue about". Often we have to fix this by adding some qualifier to the title.
Exactly. If all that mav means by "DPOV" is �restricting the topic to the discipline at hand and NPOV within that limit�, then I agree with him about how the textbooks should be written. But I disagree that this isn't already just part of NPOV.
In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of biology, then that article too is restricted to the displine of biology. This doesn't violate NPOV, and neither will the biology textbook. An important point is the existence (or potential existence) of other articles on parts of the discipline of scientific creationism (such as the attempts to pin down the dating of the flood by cross-referencing Genesis with geological data) and similarly, the (potential) existence of a textbook on that topic. To be sure, we don't have those articles on Wikipedia and probably never will have that textbook -- but we could.
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.
-- Toby _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
"In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of biology, then that article too is restricted to the displine of biology."
Well. No. That is not always true.
I just don't understand why some of you just keep focusing on the creationnism issue, only leading to hiding more important matters. Important matters are that some topics just cannot be treated just within one disciplin.
Mine definitly can't. Writing a textbook about corn, and only sticking to the plant biology would be of no interest to a farming student. He will need plant science and botany to know the crop, farming information to grow it, animal science to understand what it is needed for (hence the quality required), soil science to understand the crop requirement versus soil resources, climate science and water science to irrigate the crop wisely, chemistry and quality management to understand how to best deal with this crop disease and insect specificities whilst insuring food quality and safety, environmental issues related to that crop, such as benefits and drawbacks associated with a particular crop management, a minimum of biotech information to understand what a gmo is and what the different trends are on that topic, mechanics for the farming equipment, trade, market, economical and political background to best sell his product and project himself in the future.
That is what I would put in a good textbook on this "so-restricted" topic. This is the book I would offer to students trained to be farmers for example, this is the book I would tell them to buy. This book would encompass at least 10 different disciplines. Likely, it can only be a group work, as it requires different disciplins to work together. And that is *exactly* where Wikip�dia can help, because it is likely to benefit from different inputs, while in the "meat space", these various disciplins don't always meet.
Note I don't necessarily say this has to be NPOV. I just say what Wikipedia can offer that others can't, is the vision offered by people on the same topic from different perspectives. Here, the perspective of a farmer, of an accountant, of a trader, of a seed retailer, of a chemist researcher, of a trade-unionist, of a policy maker...
If corn is too restricted, similar books about cereal cropping would be perfect. Including all these various perspectives. This would be a good book imho. There are very few books of that type. Even when there is a collaboration, it is usually of two people at best. 2 people cannot give the best in all these disciplines. Wikip�dia can provide better because we can be more than 2.
But if all the various aspects of the topics are spreaded in 15 different booklets, all focusing on one discipline, we do just as the others do. Bland food.
It is quite frequent that professors tend to teach students research stuff, because that is what they know best, and that tend to suggest them the whole world is turning around research, here around biology. But in truth, only professors and researchers are doing stuff in research. What most students will do, and need really, is practical information to do well in life. Professors are not always very good at giving practical information. They need (and often welcome) support to adjust their teaching. They need a resource giving the practical and up to date information they have more pain to provide.
Well, that all depends if we want to make little booklets for academics to put on the shelf, or if we want to make books useful and helping people to get the big picture, as well as provide them with accurate and much needed info to deal with daily life.
Both are ok, but I am here for the second point. Not the first.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
[Replies should go only to textbook-l@wikipedia.org.]
Anthere wrote in part:
Toby Bartels wrote:
In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of biology, then that article too is restricted to the displine of biology.
Well. No. That is not always true.
Writing a textbook about corn, and only sticking to the plant biology would be of no interest to a farming student. He will need plant science and botany to know the crop, farming information to grow it, animal science to understand what it is needed for (hence the quality required), soil science to understand the crop requirement versus soil resources, climate science and water science to irrigate the crop wisely, chemistry and quality management to understand how to best deal with this crop disease and insect specificities whilst insuring food quality and safety, environmental issues related to that crop, such as benefits and drawbacks associated with a particular crop management, a minimum of biotech information to understand what a gmo is and what the different trends are on that topic, mechanics for the farming equipment, trade, market, economical and political background to best sell his product and project himself in the future.
I agree completely. For a textbook on corn farming. Which is not the same thing as a textbook on biology! So I don't see any conflict between your opinion and mine.
Both are ok, but I am here for the second point. Not the first.
So you would rather work on a textbook on corn farming than work on a textbook on biology. That's fine with me!
-- Toby
Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote: I agree completely. For a textbook on corn farming. Which is not the same thing as a textbook on biology! So I don't see any conflict between your opinion and mine.
There are no conflicts between your opinion and mine :-)
Both are ok, but I am here for the second point. Not the first.
So you would rather work on a textbook on corn farming than work on a textbook on biology. That's fine with me!
Quite true Toby.
Except that if the official rule for textbooks defines that these textbooks must be "DPOV" (as a basic rule at the same level than NPOV on Wikipedia, meaning "mandatory"), then there is no room in this project for this book. This virtual book would have to go in another project.
If this rule is not mandatory, or if this rule does not exist at all, then the book can exist there.
See ? We know the goal, we know the means, let's avoid restrictives rules :-)
cheers
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote: I agree completely. For a textbook on corn farming. Which is not the same thing as a textbook on biology! So I don't see any conflict between your opinion and mine.
There are no conflicts between your opinion and mine :-)
Both are ok, but I am here for the second point. Not the first.
So you would rather work on a textbook on corn farming than work on a textbook on biology. That's fine with me!
Quite true Toby.
Except that if the official rule for textbooks defines that these textbooks must be "DPOV" (as a basic rule at the same level than NPOV on Wikipedia, meaning "mandatory"), then there is no room in this project for this book. This virtual book would have to go in another project.
If this rule is not mandatory, or if this rule does not exist at all, then the book can exist there.
See ? We know the goal, we know the means, let's avoid restrictives rules :-)
cheers
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Anth�re wrote:
Except that if the official rule for textbooks defines that these textbooks must be "DPOV" (as a basic rule at the same level than NPOV on Wikipedia, meaning "mandatory"), then there is no room in this project for this book. This virtual book would have to go in another project.
The virtual book would be about corn farming, not biology, so it wouldn't have to fit into the DPOV of biology. The discipline of corn farming includes all of what you said, just as the discipline of medicine includes medical ethics.
But anyway, I doubt that DPOV will ever be written up. Jimmy invented NPOV, and he says that NPOV includes what mav wants. If anything happens, it's that [[NPOV]] will have to be clarified. But since Jimmy also keeps agreeing with my intepretations of it, I see no risk that any such clarification will threaten your book. The only alternative is that Jimmy's opinions are incoherent, but nobody is arguing that.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
An important point is the existence (or potential existence) of other articles on parts of the discipline of scientific creationism (such as the attempts to pin down the dating of the flood by cross-referencing Genesis with geological data) and similarly, the (potential) existence of a textbook on that topic. To be sure, we don't have those articles on Wikipedia and probably never will have that textbook -- but we could.
Boy, I think that's right on target.
I would predict that an article like that would be a challenge for us, since I presume that most of the regulars in the wikipedia community (including myself) would have little patience with so-called scientific creationism.
But a highly detailed article about scientific creationism, including a fair assessment of the types of efforts you're talking about (i.e. development of alternative theories of dating) that both mainstream scientists and creationists could agree on, should be possible!
(I should include the disclaimer 'reasonable mainstream scientists' and 'reasonable creationists' to avoid the notion that every possible nutcase in the world can always be accomodated.)
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
--- 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
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
No, to be unbiased, we need rebuttals for the individual points in articles, otherwise we are using a DPOV/SPOV.
I respectfully dissent. I think you should go read the NPOV policy again. It's more sophisticated that you give it credit for here.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
No, to be unbiased, we need rebuttals for the individual points in articles, otherwise we are
using
a DPOV/SPOV.
I respectfully dissent. I think you should go read the NPOV policy again. It's more sophisticated that you give it credit for here.
--Jimbo
I've already read it, and imho it supporst my opinion on the matter.
To quote /you/ from [[Wikipedia:NPOV]]:
"2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. (I happen to believe this, by the way.) It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view."
The section "consequence: writing for the enemy" (the title explains my point alone) explains my view, but it is written confusingly, and I'd need to include the entire section in this post. Just go there and read it. I would edit it for clarity, but I think that would be unethical when refering to it.
If we purposly exclude other POVs, this effect will be even stronger. Exclusion of information is inherently POV, and if we can, we should keep it to a minimum.
In the Q/A section, the policy also clarifies there is no such thing as objectivity, but objectivity was assumed when talking about evidence.
My suggestion for all of this is that we make several appendicies, kept only online, that explain the reasons against, say, evolution, and for other theories such as intelligent design or creationism, in a textbook-like manner. That way, we can include enough information to be NPOV while still writing like a textbook. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote in part:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Our current NPOV policy does not restrict topical focus; that was my point.
Well, it does, though, doesn't it? If an article
is about X, then it
is about X, not "X plus some other junk that people
like to argue
about". Often we have to fix this by adding some
qualifier to the
title.
Exactly. If all that mav means by "DPOV" is �restricting the topic to the discipline at hand and NPOV within that limit�, then I agree with him about how the textbooks should be written. But I disagree that this isn't already just part of NPOV.
In Wikipedia, when we write an article on part of biology, then that article too is restricted to the displine of biology. This doesn't violate NPOV, and neither will the biology textbook. An important point is the existence (or potential existence) of other articles on parts of the discipline of scientific creationism (such as the attempts to pin down the dating of the flood by cross-referencing Genesis with geological data) and similarly, the (potential) existence of a textbook on that topic. To be sure, we don't have those articles on Wikipedia and probably never will have that textbook -- but we could.
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.
-- Toby
Well, I think the encyclopedia should continue being written as [[Wikipedia:NPOV]] and we should differentiate between this more on-topic POV and classic NPOV, by calling this new subset of NPOV 'DPOV'. Just for clarity. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
LittleDan wrote:
Well, I think the encyclopedia should continue being written as [[Wikipedia:NPOV]] and we should differentiate between this more on-topic POV and classic NPOV, by calling this new subset of NPOV 'DPOV'. Just for clarity.
Since "NPOV" has never meant �encyclopaedic�, I don't see the need to change letters to clarify. And if I understand my Wikipedia history right, Jimbo's concept of NPOV predated the -pedias (even Nu-).
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
Since "NPOV" has never meant «encyclopaedic», I don't see the need to change letters to clarify.
Yes!
And if I understand my Wikipedia history right, Jimbo's concept of NPOV predated the -pedias (even Nu-).
Hmm, I'm not sure about that.
Probably the phrase originated in emails between me and Larry during the early days of Nupedia and possibly not until the early days of Wikipedia. It'd be an interesting history project to try to find out.
I don't save all my emails, though. Some I do, some I don't.
Larry preferred the term 'unbiased', and with some good reason, but I always felt that 'NPOV' better avoided a lot of sticky epistemological issues about Truth With A Capital T. It's a social concept, not an epistemological concept.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote in part:
Larry preferred the term 'unbiased', and with some good reason, but I always felt that 'NPOV' better avoided a lot of sticky epistemological issues about Truth With A Capital T. It's a social concept, not an epistemological concept.
"neutral point of view" is problematic, in that it's not a POV at all. [[fr:]] says "la neutralité de point de vue", which is subtly different: "the neutrality of point of view".
-- Toby
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org