I have this sneaky feeling like when we all have some specific passages in front of us everyone is going to pretty much aggree on what is appropriate or inappropriate, and that the different POVs may all have a place. If it is all built in modules then we can choose to link to any or all of the ones that are there. I think that applies to the issue raised earlier about what things should be included like moral arguments or other perspectives on the subjects covered. One of the cool things about a hypertext book is that we can link to all kinds of things that a traditional textbook doesn't have space to print and the reader can choose which parts he wants to read.
Karl
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Karl Wick wrote:
If it is all built in modules then we can choose to link to any or all of the ones that are there.
Well, I think that's really a dangerous way to proceed. Whenever NPOV is abandoned as an organizing principle, there's a temptation to think "Yeah, this is biased, but anyone who doesn't like it can just remove this module or not read it."
Whatever needs to be said, can be said in an NPOV way.
I think that applies to the issue raised earlier about what things should be included like moral arguments or other perspectives on the subjects covered.
But there's no reason why moral arguments or other perspectives need to be presented in any other way than NPOV.
One of the cool things about a hypertext book is that we can link to all kinds of things that a traditional textbook doesn't have space to print and the reader can choose which parts he wants to read.
Sure, that's true, but we can't let it become an excuse for biased writing.
It's probably instructive to review a philosophy text on ethics. In well written texts, ethical arguments are presented in a neutral fashion. The author need not advocate any of the arguments directly, but the author must present the various viewpoints fairly.
--Jimbo
Have you people seen any humanities textbooks lately ? Their biggest problem is that they aren't written from neutral point of view. While science textbooks are usually fine, ones for history, arts etc. vary from "more or less objective presentation of facts but with very biased comments" to "pure propaganda". In every country history textbooks refering to the same events present it in completely different light. It would be wonderful if they presented more points of view and avoided unnecessary commentary. If we're going to make textbooks, why shouldn't we do it right way ? Free neutral textbooks are exactly what the world needs now.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Have you people seen any humanities textbooks lately ?
I actually haven't. But your comments don't surprise me.
It sure would be great to have some examples to discuss, because I think that getting our "heads on straight" about this issue from the outset will be pretty important.
--Jimbo
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org