This issue has not yet come up in any textbook. However, my hope is that, on occasion, Wikibooks could be home to textbooks advocating a certain point of view. In cases such as these, the POV of the book could be explained in a mission statement at the beginning of the book. That way a creationist textbook could be written and prepared on the site by and for creationists.
My tendency is that rather than regulate freedom in this sense, let the books fend for themselves. If enough people think that they have merit, they contribute to the book and it advances. If not, then the book just sits there.
I'd like to at least keep the door open and deal with it as it comes up instead of outright outlawing it from the start.
Karl
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Karl Wick wrote:
That way a creationist textbook could be written and prepared on the site by and for creationists.
Well, I don't think that abandoning NPOV is going to help at all.
Let's use this example, because I'm guessing that all of us here today think that creationism is essentially wrong, a false theory about the world.
A book *about* creationism, written mostly by creationists but also by anti-creationists, with both sides working hard to accomodate the other, could easily be NPOV. Abandoning NPOV merely weakens the book for everyone.
I'd like to at least keep the door open and deal with it as it comes up instead of outright outlawing it from the start.
Well, certainly as a practical matter, we can deal with it as it comes up. No sense generating a priori rules and regulations for a problem that doesn't exist.
But I think it is critically important that the Wikimedia Foundation adhere *strictly* to NPOV, globally, as matter of quality control.
We want people to say "Well, the Wikimedia Foundation book about creationism is a revolutionary tour de force. It has been widely adopted in college courses dealing with the controversy, and it is pointed to by evolutionists and creationists as the most wide-ranging and fair treatment of the subject. Newcomers wishing to learn about the controversy can ask for no finer presentation of the issues and arguments."
We do NOT want people to say "Yes, those Wikimedia people will publish anything. They have a pretty good encyclopedia, but they also publish books that are pro-creationism, pro-Nazi, and pro-homosexual marriage."
NPOV generates credibility, because it is a credible decision rule, a credible process. NPOV is that which we can all agree with. And NPOV also gives us a way to settle internal controversies peacefully, because of the standing rule that if two people are arguing about the content of an article, they should both be working hard to try to accomodate the other point of view.
--Jimbo
Perhaps there is a way to reconcile the seemingly POV approach of these books with the non-negotiable NPOV of Wikipedia/media? I am not certain there is.
A textbook may have a particular purpose, i.e. it is used to advance certain theories of knowledge, so it seems to me that on some level there can be no NPOV textbooks that deal with interpretive subjects (history books are often like this, as history is not written by the vanquished there is often an implicit POV even if it is written in NPOV language there is still often an agenda, different theories of history, such as social historians have fundamentally different POVs from political historians, they see the cause of events not being political events but development and transformation of social institutions, classes, ecnomic forces, etc.) So it might be very hard for a really well written history text book to be NPOV as that would detract from the ability to explain the subject without constantly having to put in foot notes making cross references..
So how to be NPOV and still publish things from the point of view of particular theoretical approaches or from a certain school? Every page would have to make it clear that such a page was being written from a particular perspective and that it was only being explained from that perspective; to be fair it would have to point to the other POVs that would also have to be explained in detail. This seems to defeat the purpose of having such a textbook. Would anyone who needs such a text book use it? Well they might edit out the NPOV references to make it POV in thier fork, but that would seem to defeat the purpose of writing it with all the references to other works of competing opinions. Would the creationist write the book that cannot be used without the reference to all the anti-creationist stuff (and indeed the anti- creationist would have to collaoborate with the creationist -- hard to imagine that happening also).
I can't see a way to write such a book from a NPOV approach so that it could be useful to someone who has a particular "agenda" of course, as Jimmy points out, anyone could start a creationist textbook wiki and make such a book; it just does not work with NPOV.
Alex756
----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Wick" karlwick@yahoo.com To: "text" textbook-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 12:25 PM Subject: [Textbook-l] Re: history texts
This issue has not yet come up in any textbook. However, my hope is that, on occasion, Wikibooks could be home to textbooks advocating a certain point of view. In cases such as these, the POV of the book could be explained in a mission statement at the beginning of the book. That way a creationist textbook could be written and prepared on the site by and for creationists.
My tendency is that rather than regulate freedom in this sense, let the books fend for themselves. If enough people think that they have merit, they contribute to the book and it advances. If not, then the book just sits there.
I'd like to at least keep the door open and deal with it as it comes up instead of outright outlawing it from the start.
Karl
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
--- "Alex R." alex756@nyc.rr.com wrote:
Perhaps there is a way to reconcile the seemingly POV approach of these books with the non-negotiable NPOV of Wikipedia/media? I am not certain there is.
A textbook may have a particular purpose, i.e. it is used to advance certain theories of knowledge, so it seems to me that on some level there can be no NPOV textbooks
that deal with interpretive subjects (history books are often like this, as history is not written by the vanquished there is often an implicit POV even if it is written in NPOV language there is still often an agenda, different theories of history, such as social historians have fundamentally different POVs from political historians, they see the cause of events not being political events but development and transformation of social institutions, classes, ecnomic forces, etc.) So it might be very hard for a really well written history text book to be NPOV as that would detract from the ability to explain the subject without constantly having to put in foot notes making cross references..
So how to be NPOV and still publish things from the point of view of particular theoretical approaches or from a certain school? Every page would have to make it clear that such a page was being written from a particular perspective and that it was only being explained from that perspective; to be fair it would have to point to the other POVs that would also have to be explained in detail. This seems to defeat the purpose of having such a textbook. Would anyone who needs such a text book use it? Well they might edit out the NPOV references to make it POV in thier fork, but that would seem to defeat the purpose of writing it with all the references to other works of competing opinions. Would the creationist write the book that cannot be used without the reference to all the anti-creationist stuff (and indeed the anti- creationist would have to collaoborate with the creationist -- hard to imagine that happening also).
I can't see a way to write such a book from a NPOV approach so that it could be useful to someone who has a particular "agenda" of course, as Jimmy points out, anyone could start a creationist textbook wiki and make such a book; it just does not work with NPOV.
Alex756
I don't see why NPOV is so absolutely necessary. As you said, NPOV is impossible for textbooks. So what determines what views can and can't be on Wikibooks? Certainly an evolutionary standpoint would be allowed, and it wouldn't need much NPOV to make it clear that some people don't believe it. Why not a creationist textbook? Sure, there's no scientific basis for it, but who's to judge whether scientific things are better than religious things? IMHO DPOV would solve all of these problems, making it so that different textbooks could have different prestated POVs and not have to worry about making every sentece NPOV. Your suggeston is somewhat like DPOV but only for the majority view. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I don't see why NPOV is so absolutely necessary. As you said, NPOV is impossible for textbooks.
NPOV is not impossible for textbooks. Why should it be? It's the easiest thing in the world. I don't agree with Alex's comments on history being necessarily POV at all -- I think that his comment misunderstands the social evolution of consensus embodied in an NPOV policy.
Suppose it is true that at any point in time, a history text will be imperfect, biased in some way. Does that mean we have good reason to celebrate this flaw? And to enshrine it? I think not. If someone comes along to improve the text by making it neutral, that's great, and that's what NPOV is all about.
Consider, what is the alternative? Suppose someone comes along and finds a biased or inaccurate statement in a textbook, a statement which puts forward a particular point of view. Now, someone clicks on "edit this page" and changes the statement to make it neutral, i.e. to make it so that both sides of a dispute could agree to it.
Are you suggesting that such behavior should be frowned upon? Perhaps subject to banning? Can you imagine the result? "Jimbo, I think you should ban Mr. Reasonable because he keeps coming in and making our biased text less biased. We don't disagree with what he's writing, it's actually NPOV, but we are opposed to neutrality."
Why not a creationist textbook? Sure, there's no scientific basis for it, but who's to judge whether scientific things are better than religious things?
NPOV is the answer. The point is, if there is legitimate controversy, then the text itself need take no particular stand, but rather present the conflict in a way that all parties can agree.
IMHO DPOV would solve all of these problems, making it so that different textbooks could have different prestated POVs and not have to worry about making every sentece NPOV.
Ack! This is a total misunderstanding of NPOV. There is no requirement that we make "every sentence NPOV", as if we have to treat the text as a series of statements rather than a flow of discussion. It's perfectly appropriate to set a context, and then talk within that context.
I think this is all a very misguided conversation, an attempt to solve non-existent problems with NPOV.
--Jimbo
From: "Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com
NPOV is not impossible for textbooks. Why should it be? It's the easiest thing in the world. I don't agree with Alex's comments on history being necessarily POV at all -- I think that his comment misunderstands the social evolution of consensus embodied in an NPOV policy.
The problem with historians is that they see the story of history as being about belief systems, ways of organizing knowledge and coming to conclusions. It is a debate in academic circles that has been going on for years. History, as an "academic discipline" (as oppposed to what most people call historical facts) is based upon interpretation. Most historians will, at some point recognize the relatively validity of another historical method or interpretive approach, but ultimately the reasons things happen are mysterious. Take the French Revolution, hundreds of books have been written from it from different points of view, even writing a book that fairly documents such different points of view would be daunting; are these historians searching for the one "right" way of looking at the FR and going to discard all the other approaches as "flawed" only the most closeminded historians do not see the merits in the approaches of other historical methods having a multiplicity of POVs is good.
The point is that historians would not agree with a social consensus because the data that they use is always open to interpretation. It is not about inaccuracy or flaws, it is just that when people interpret events they do so in differing ways with differing ideas about what is right or wrong. Even the data that is recorded (primary sources) can be looked at in different ways, unlike other areas of the social sciences (though some mind disagree with this) the data varies and what the significance of that data might be.
Perhaps I am wrong but I thought NPOV was large enough to incorporate all this differences without putting the "flawed" judgement upon the valuable work of scholars that contributes to some understanding of the past without trying to create one total "objective" history, which most historians already agree is inpossible to create in a world filled with a diversity of cultures, beliefs and opinions about the meaning and signficance of events.
My undertanding of NPOV is that it requires a recogition that there are multiple points of view; the historical approach to "narrative" (which is what this discussion is really about) is that it is based upon the "objective" narrator. Today we know that events can be interpreted, recorded and understood in a variety of methods, according to different cultural norms and expectations. It is not a matter of determining what is right or wrong, but relevant or irrelevant. All the differing opinions can be respected. (I am not talking here about inaccuracies or situations where individuals obviously have an overt agenda they are trying to push; we are talking about sophisticated differences in approaches; valid epistimological issues).
Suppose it is true that at any point in time, a history text will be imperfect, biased in some way. Does that mean we have good reason to celebrate this flaw? And to enshrine it? I think not. If someone comes along to improve the text by making it neutral, that's great, and that's what NPOV is all about.
Once again, I don't think that differing historical methods are necessarily flawed or imperfect. These are questions of interpretation that require a detailed analysis of the analytic methods of one historian and his/her data. Rarely will the critique of an approach uncover a flaw, usually it will be a differing opinion, which reasonable people are all allowed to have; Lefevre has one idea about the role of peasants in the French Revolution, Braudel another, and Schama might practically discount their influence almost all together seeing the revolution as an revolution in ideologies and "mentalities".
Braudel might see Schama as being a right wing apologist and Schama might state that Lefevre is a warmed over communist (and they all might be right about such things to a particular extent), but they will all recognize the work of the other as being of interest, significant and of merit to the development of a historical discourse and the evolution of historical analysis. The study of history is not about coming to one final analysis of events, but to review the events from differing perspectives and to allow such differences in approach to highlight different factors and possible causes for the development of events. There is no one theory of the French Revolution just an evolution of theories as they are developed by new schools of historical research and methodology. de Toqueville's work on the "ancien regime" is not flawed because it was displaced by later, more analytic historical methods. It has its own place, its own voice, and a significiance that most people would not question even today. It is another secondary source that adds to the historical dialogue.
Alex756
Jimmy Wales:
I think this is all a very misguided conversation, an attempt to solve non-existent problems with NPOV.
------- Absolutely 100% correct.
Essentially, in taking this thread to its reductionist (or logical) extreme, one would have to concede that *all* points of view, including NPOV, *are points of view*.
We should note that going too far in the direction of NPOV - which is where this thread is heading - is *exactly* the process engaged by commercial textbook publishers in an attempt to please everyone. We need only look an 90% of the K-12 textbooks out there to see the kind of pedagogical medoicrity that this approach has led to.
Thus, following this line of argument, obsessive NPOV (ultimately, within the contect of the Wikipedia project) = *NO* point of view = no text or texts worse than what we see from the commercial sector. That's where this argument - accurately characterized as "misguided", is headed.
Further thoughts:
There is *no* way to escape the subjective bias of *any* author(s). However, some authors, and books, work hard to present material in a way that presents all sides *without* burdening the *purpose* of the book with side issues that divert it from it's primary goal. I think that's the point that Jimmy was making when he says "The point is, if there is legitimate controversy, then the text itself need take no particular stand, but rather present the conflict in a way that all parties can agree." With respect, I would slightly alter Jimmy's end statement to read as follows: "....but rather present the conflict in a way that all parties can *agree to disagree*."
The goal of the Wikipedia textbook project is to take the best state framework structures, and build content around those structures. The curriculum specifics of those frameworks are *very* specific. They're meant to be. One can be NPOV within the context of curriculum frameworks, but be assured that working within any framework is POV. It's simply unavoidable. Pick your poison.
In the case of textbooks built around state-approved frameworks, there *is* an *implicit purpose* built in. That purpose is to create a tool (the textbook) that will help a teacher present material in a way that the groups - those approving the textbook frameworks in the first place - 'approve' of. Those groups have - to the best of their ability (with respect, these efforts vary in quality from state-to-state) - *already* gone through their own NPOV process!
In California's case, for example, the curriuculum frameworks committees have sought the input of hundreds of teachers, topical experts, the general public, educational researchers, cognitive development experts, private and home schoolers, and many other groups to try to find ways to create a comprehensive 'general' frameworks that 'work'. These frameworks are comprehensive, and very thorough, but are they *perfectly* NPOV? Of course not. They're general guides set up to help those creating textbooks to build content that is thought-provoking, informative, and hopefully well-presented.
[note: one of the great opportunities present to any teacher who doesn't agree with what's stated in a textbook is to use that same textbook as a foil in presenting elternative arguments. This is called "teaching against the text". It's a technique that's widely used, at all academic levels]
Thus, per Jimmy's argument, I suggest we forge ahead with the best frameworks out there, build good open source textbooks, and trust that as a part of that process, those who want to add modules to counterbalance what they see as bias in the frameworks can do so. This gives everyone the best of open source. On the one hand we end up with *better* books that are based on curriculum frameworks, as well as alternate materials to be used in addition to, instead of, or in tandem with the approved curriculum framework materials for those that want to point their educational efforts in a different direction that those proposed by one or another state framework.
Sanford
Absolutely 100% correct.
Essentially, in taking this thread to its reductionist (or logical) extreme, one would have to concede that *all* points of view, including NPOV, *are points of view*.
I'd say NPOV is more like a meta-POV. Unlike the meta-POV of choosing one specific POV and teaching it, NPOV treats all different POVs equally. It is on a whole different level that bias.
We should note that going too far in the direction of NPOV - which is where this thread is heading - is *exactly* the process engaged by commercial textbook publishers in an attempt to please everyone. We need only look an 90% of the K-12 textbooks out there to see the kind of pedagogical medoicrity that this approach has led to.
What the textbook companies make is far from NPOV. What they have is a series of sometimes dubious facts all purporting to be correct. They also have unrelated facts in places to satisfy certain people. I don't think anyone wants Wikibooks to be like this.
I think DPOV (except where there is legitimate contraversy *within* the field), combined with a blurb about how this reflects one specific POV, would be the best. This blurb doesn't have to be long, and it can acknowledge that almost everyone agrees with it, but I still think it would be beneficial. Maybe it would just be online, not printed.
It seems like most people are advocating for NPOV for Wikibooks but really mean DPOV without the blurbs mentioned above.
Thus, following this line of argument, obsessive NPOV (ultimately, within the contect of the Wikipedia project) = *NO* point of view = no text or texts worse than what we see from the commercial sector. That's where this argument - accurately characterized as "misguided", is headed.
NPOV just means that the reader decides. This may not be what we need for Wikibooks, as I already said, but it is not that there is no POV. I have no idea where you came up with that NPOV means no text.
Further thoughts:
There is *no* way to escape the subjective bias of *any* author(s).
There is no way to create a wiki that covers all encyclopedic topics, yet we still aim for it. Similarly, we can escape *some* subjective bias, and we should do as much as we can.
However, some authors, and books, work hard to present material in a way that presents all sides *without* burdening the *purpose* of the book with side issues that divert it from it's primary goal. I think that's the point that Jimmy was making when he says "The point is, if there is legitimate controversy, then the text itself need take no particular stand, but rather present the conflict in a way that all parties can agree." With respect, I would slightly alter Jimmy's end statement to read as follows: "....but rather present the conflict in a way that all parties can *agree to disagree*."
I think that's about what he meant, but personally, I like his version better.
The goal of the Wikipedia textbook project is to take the best state framework structures, and build content around those structures. The curriculum specifics of those frameworks are *very* specific. They're meant to be. One can be NPOV within the context of curriculum frameworks, but be assured that working within any framework is POV. It's simply unavoidable. Pick your poison.
In the case of textbooks built around state-approved frameworks, there *is* an *implicit purpose* built in. That purpose is to create a tool (the textbook) that will help a teacher present material in a way that the groups - those approving the textbook frameworks in the first place - 'approve' of. Those groups have - to the best of their ability (with respect, these efforts vary in quality from state-to-state) - *already* gone through their own NPOV process!
In California's case, for example, the curriuculum frameworks committees have sought the input of hundreds of teachers, topical experts, the general public, educational researchers, cognitive development experts, private and home schoolers, and many other groups to try to find ways to create a comprehensive 'general' frameworks that 'work'. These frameworks are comprehensive, and very thorough, but are they *perfectly* NPOV? Of course not. They're general guides set up to help those creating textbooks to build content that is thought-provoking, informative, and hopefully well-presented.
OK, you've convinced me on that point.
[note: one of the great opportunities present to any teacher who doesn't agree with what's stated in a textbook is to use that same textbook as a foil in presenting alternative arguments. This is called "teaching against the text". It's a technique that's widely used, at all academic levels]
...and Wikibooks should be very capable of that being done. (I love it when my teachers do that) LDan
Thus, per Jimmy's argument, I suggest we forge ahead with the best frameworks out there, build good open source textbooks, and trust that as a part of that process, those who want to add modules to counterbalance what they see as bias in the frameworks can do so. This gives everyone the best of open source. On the one hand we end up with *better* books that are based on curriculum frameworks, as well as alternate materials to be used in addition to, instead of, or in tandem with the approved curriculum framework materials for those that want to point their educational efforts in a different direction that those proposed by one or another state framework.
Sanford
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Ehrenberg"
There is no way to create a wiki that covers all encyclopedic topics, yet we still aim for it. Similarly, we can escape *some* subjective bias, and we should do as much as we can.
------- That was my point. So, moving forward from that, let's do it. Otherwise, we will end up contemplating our respective NPOV navels. :)
Sanford
Absolutely 100% correct.
Essentially, in taking this thread to its reductionist (or logical) extreme, one would have to concede that *all* points of view, including NPOV, *are points of view*.
I'd say NPOV is more like a meta-POV. Unlike the meta-POV of choosing one specific POV and teaching it, NPOV treats all different POVs equally. It is on a whole different level that bias.
We should note that going too far in the direction of NPOV - which is where this thread is heading - is *exactly* the process engaged by commercial textbook publishers in an attempt to please everyone. We need only look an 90% of the K-12 textbooks out there to see the kind of pedagogical medoicrity that this approach has led to.
What the textbook companies make is far from NPOV. What they have is a series of sometimes dubious facts all purporting to be correct. They also have unrelated facts in places to satisfy certain people. I don't think anyone wants Wikibooks to be like this.
I think DPOV (except where there is legitimate contraversy *within* the field), combined with a blurb about how this reflects one specific POV, would be the best. This blurb doesn't have to be long, and it can acknowledge that almost everyone agrees with it, but I still think it would be beneficial. Maybe it would just be online, not printed.
It seems like most people are advocating for NPOV for Wikibooks but really mean DPOV without the blurbs mentioned above.
Thus, following this line of argument, obsessive NPOV (ultimately, within the contect of the Wikipedia project) = *NO* point of view = no text or texts worse than what we see from the commercial sector. That's where this argument - accurately characterized as "misguided", is headed.
NPOV just means that the reader decides. This may not be what we need for Wikibooks, as I already said, but it is not that there is no POV. I have no idea where you came up with that NPOV means no text.
Further thoughts:
There is *no* way to escape the subjective bias of *any* author(s).
There is no way to create a wiki that covers all encyclopedic topics, yet we still aim for it. Similarly, we can escape *some* subjective bias, and we should do as much as we can.
However, some authors, and books, work hard to present material in a way that presents all sides *without* burdening the *purpose* of the book with side issues that divert it from it's primary goal. I think that's the point that Jimmy was making when he says "The point is, if there is legitimate controversy, then the text itself need take no particular stand, but rather present the conflict in a way that all parties can agree." With respect, I would slightly alter Jimmy's end statement to read as follows: "....but rather present the conflict in a way that all parties can *agree to disagree*."
I think that's about what he meant, but personally, I like his version better.
The goal of the Wikipedia textbook project is to take the best state framework structures, and build content around those structures. The curriculum specifics of those frameworks are *very* specific. They're meant to be. One can be NPOV within the context of curriculum frameworks, but be assured that working within any framework is POV. It's simply unavoidable. Pick your poison.
In the case of textbooks built around state-approved frameworks, there *is* an *implicit purpose* built in. That purpose is to create a tool (the textbook) that will help a teacher present material in a way that the groups - those approving the textbook frameworks in the first place - 'approve' of. Those groups have - to the best of their ability (with respect, these efforts vary in quality from state-to-state) - *already* gone through their own NPOV process!
In California's case, for example, the curriuculum frameworks committees have sought the input of hundreds of teachers, topical experts, the general public, educational researchers, cognitive development experts, private and home schoolers, and many other groups to try to find ways to create a comprehensive 'general' frameworks that 'work'. These frameworks are comprehensive, and very thorough, but are they *perfectly* NPOV? Of course not. They're general guides set up to help those creating textbooks to build content that is thought-provoking, informative, and hopefully well-presented.
OK, you've convinced me on that point.
[note: one of the great opportunities present to any teacher who doesn't agree with what's stated in a textbook is to use that same textbook as a foil in presenting alternative arguments. This is called "teaching against the text". It's a technique that's widely used, at all academic levels]
...and Wikibooks should be very capable of that being done. (I love it when my teachers do that) LDan
Thus, per Jimmy's argument, I suggest we forge ahead with the best frameworks out there, build good open source textbooks, and trust that as a part of that process, those who want to add modules to counterbalance what they see as bias in the frameworks can do so. This gives everyone the best of open source. On the one hand we end up with *better* books that are based on curriculum frameworks, as well as alternate materials to be used in addition to, instead of, or in tandem with the approved curriculum framework materials for those that want to point their educational efforts in a different direction that those proposed by one or another state framework.
Sanford
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
LittleDan wrote:
I'd say NPOV is more like a meta-POV. Unlike the meta-POV of choosing one specific POV and teaching it, NPOV treats all different POVs equally. It is on a whole different level that bias.
Yes. I think that it's been widely acknowledged since early on (certainly since before I arrived on the scene in 2002) that "neutral point of view" is a bit of a misnomer. That phrase implies that there is some point of view that is neutral, and we are choosing that point of view. It's not true that there is such a point of view, of course; more to the point, that's not what "NPOV" is intended to mean. [[wp:fr:]]'s "Neutralité de point de vue" is (a bit) better.
There is no way to create a wiki that covers all encyclopedic topics, yet we still aim for it. Similarly, we can escape *some* subjective bias, and we should do as much as we can.
Right. We should recognise that nothing that we write is purely NPOV. Always, we must strive to make things better and better -- in every way, including that one.
-- Toby
NPOV is not impossible for textbooks. Why should it be? It's the easiest thing in the world. I don't agree with Alex's comments on history being necessarily POV at all -- I think that his comment misunderstands the social evolution of consensus embodied in an NPOV policy.
OK, I guess NPOV is possible for *some* textbooks, namely the ones that couldn't have a POV (like programming languages) or ones with minimal disagreement (such as physics or literature), but for things like Israeli history (I'm not sure if Alex was reffering to page history or actual history, I haven't read his message yet), there is widespread disagreement about basic underlying facts, not to mention people's motives, both of which are essential to creating a good textbook. To represent both of these views in a single textbook could be confusing to many kids below the college level (not all of them, but a significant amount). At the elementary school level, simplification to a DPOV is absolutely necessary so that all of the kids in the class can follow it.
Suppose it is true that at any point in time, a history text will be imperfect, biased in some way. Does that mean we have good reason to celebrate this flaw? And to enshrine it? I think not. If someone comes along to improve the text by making it neutral, that's great, and that's what NPOV is all about.
Consider, what is the alternative? Suppose someone comes along and finds a biased or inaccurate statement in a textbook, a statement which puts forward a particular point of view. Now, someone clicks on "edit this page" and changes the statement to make it neutral, i.e. to make it so that both sides of a dispute could agree to it.
Are you suggesting that such behavior should be frowned upon? Perhaps subject to banning? Can you imagine the result? "Jimbo, I think you should ban Mr. Reasonable because he keeps coming in and making our biased text less biased. We don't disagree with what he's writing, it's actually NPOV, but we are opposed to neutrality."
If we have a policy to write clear, non-wishy-washy, age-appropriate textbooks, then in some cases NPOV could be used. But in most cases in the K-12 level, we'd have to minimise NPOV and use more of a DPOV. We wouldn't ban people because they make the textbooks unclear, we'd just tell them that we prefer textbooks that can be easily understood at that age level and ask them to change it to be more clear. If not, we can change the textbook ourselves to make it clearer. We'd never ban, or even consistantly revert, the work of people using NPOV. I think that if people are using an NPOV, they wouldn't have edit wars and would probably respond to our request of DPOV.
NPOV is the answer. The point is, if there is legitimate controversy, then the text itself need take no particular stand, but rather present the conflict in a way that all parties can agree.
Creationists wouldn't want half of their textbook filled up with the Christ-hating, secular humanist arguments of Darwinists. Similarly, Darwinists wouldn't like half of their textbook filled with the pseudoscientific views of creationists. In the end, NPOV could be a big waste of time. I think that, possibly, the textbooks could have footnotes or (I hope this is implimented) annotation, but these notes would have only short arguments and not go into too much depth.
Ack! This is a total misunderstanding of NPOV. There is no requirement that we make "every sentence NPOV", as if we have to treat the text as a series of statements rather than a flow of discussion. It's perfectly appropriate to set a context, and then talk within that context.
Sorry, I guess I understand you now.
I think this is all a very misguided conversation, an attempt to solve non-existent problems with NPOV.
--Jimbo
There are problems. Textbooks are fundimentally different than encyclopedias. That's no argument *for* DPOV, but NPOV is different in a textbook context. Textbooks for young children need to be clear and simple, something which NPOV has a deficiency in. NPOV can also take up a lot of space with stuff many teachers won't use, making the textbook either have twice as many pages or half the content. What if we used the context idea like you're talking about, but instead of the paragraphs as the context, what if we use most of the textbook. Then we'd write a disclaimer that says that this is only one of the several possible POVs on the topic. We could also write a little about other POVs, but within actual textbooks, we can't give them equal time. Individual textbooks can choose a POV to focus on most of the time. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:59:59PM -0700, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
NPOV is not impossible for textbooks. Why should it be? It's the easiest thing in the world. I don't agree with Alex's comments on history being necessarily POV at all -- I think that his comment misunderstands the social evolution of consensus embodied in an NPOV policy.
OK, I guess NPOV is possible for *some* textbooks, namely the ones that couldn't have a POV (like programming languages) or ones with minimal disagreement (such as physics or literature), but for things like Israeli history (I'm not sure if Alex was reffering to page history or actual history, I haven't read his message yet), there is widespread disagreement about basic underlying facts, not to mention people's motives, both of which are essential to creating a good textbook. To represent both of these views in a single textbook could be confusing to many kids below the college level (not all of them, but a significant amount). At the elementary school level, simplification to a DPOV is absolutely necessary so that all of the kids in the class can follow it.
History is exactly where good NPOV textbooks are needed most. In most countries history textbooks are little more than propaganda, by both choice of material (ever noticed that they are mostly about history of the government of the country, with relatively little information about other areas like economy, culture etc. ?) and very strong bias in describing it.
In particular, if people in Israel had good NPOV information instead of being fed by propaganda by both sides all the time, it would be much easier for them to solve their problems.
From: "Tomasz Wegrzanowski"
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:59:59PM -0700, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
NPOV is not impossible for textbooks. Why should it be? It's the easiest thing in the world. I don't agree with Alex's comments on history being necessarily POV at all -- I think that his comment misunderstands the social evolution of consensus embodied in an NPOV policy.
OK, I guess NPOV is possible for *some* textbooks, namely the ones that couldn't have a POV (like programming languages) or ones with minimal disagreement (such as physics ....
I agree with that too, these subjects are based upon actual knowledge and information. There is little disagreeent on what a law of physics is or even those theories that are theoretical; generally physicists will explain and present theories they don't personally agree with..
or literature), ...
I a not so sure about literature. A textbook writer may have a theory of literature that they are pushing through their textbook; once again this is entering the area of intepretive knowledge that is often based upon a POV. It is not the simple NPOV dispute we often see on Wikipedia, X happened, not Y. Or X happened because A felt it meant B.
But the more complex "X happened because of facts A, B, C, ... resulting in Z. The reason this happened is because Prop(1), Prop(2), Prop(3) are true." Then the second POV is "X happened because of facts B, E, F, ... resulting in Z. The reason this happened is because Prop (11), Prop(12), Prop(13), Prop(1) are true." With further POVs that can reach a large number of POVs. My understandin of NPOV is to include all of them, but if there are hundreds of such theories the article is no longer about X but about the various interpretations of X, a different subject, really but about the history of interpretations of what people believe about X happening. This is called historiography, and because of this the study of history is never simple and based upon an evolvling social consensus. History is all about the point of view of the historian that is constructing the historical model.
but for things like Israeli history ... there is widespread disagreement about basic underlying facts, not to mention people's motives, both of which are essential to creating a good textbook. ....
This is what I am talking about. Underlying facts are not necessarily known; certain high profile facts may be known, but the underlying facts are the sources of history that remain hidden from view. But even if they are known there is still the same problem.
History is exactly where good NPOV textbooks are needed most. In most countries history textbooks are little more than propaganda,
I would agree with the statement that many countries use grammer school and high school history textbooks as tools of propaganda, is, but what do historians do? They write their own textbooks and when students get to university then they begin to understand how the study of history is often captured by state controlled institutions for political reasons. Does this process occur in democracies where there is freedom of speech? Yes, but as most people do not understand how sophisticated propaganda can be in these lower schools so there is little political will to make the study of history more inclusive. Some would also argue that younger students would not really understand the levels of interpretation that go on in contstructing models of history and that often these political histories are not wrong in themselves, just generalizations that cannot be more sophisticated because they are for an audience that could not understand how relative history may be. The history of a country is often tied in with a sense of nationalism and the reason people are willing to serve their country. If one puts all that into question, the basic rationale for the nation-state may begin to fall apart so history serves some kind of state function and that is why it is often propaganda in some schools.
by both choice of material (ever noticed that they are mostly about
history of
the government of the country, with relatively little information about
other
areas like economy, culture etc. ?) and very strong bias in describing it.
This is the whole point, history is always written from the point of view of some theory, there is no inclusive theory of history. It may be written from a political point of view or from a economic point of view or from a cultural point of view. The proponents of these different views do not agree about the relevant facts (it would be impossible to have a history textbook that has all the facts of the past, just as it is impossible that Wikipedia have a page on every person who ever lived). Thus, each POV has to have an underlying methodology, the historians of each approach study different sets of primary sources (where history comes from) and analytically construct a theory based upon that set of sources. They may butrice those primary sources with secondary sources (these are already interpretations but may have some value). Are we talking about there being differences about basic facts? Sometimes yes, because the historical record may have been created out of secondary sources and a return to the primary sources may not verify what had been believed to be true. Sometimes the basic facts are not in dispute, but that does not make it any easier as those basic facts can be interpreted in a variety of ways, all possibly reasonable interpretations of those underlying "facts".
In particular, if people in Israel had good NPOV information instead of
being
fed by propaganda by both sides all the time, it would be much easier for
them
to solve their problems.
This is not really about history. First what is "NPOV information"? When it comes to history historians, I think, would say that there is no trivial answer to this question. Would they call their differing interpretations of history "propaganda? I don't think so. It is those who use the work of historians that make it propaganda. If you study the French Revolution from the point of view of one historian you may be looking at the evolution of economic forces in France, the effects of crop yields, migration patterns of peasant families, etc. you, as a historian, has certain perspectives on the forces of history; these forces were what caused the Revolution, not the rhetoric of certain revolutionary notables that happened to be in the right place at the right time. Another historian may see the French Revolution as being just the development of ideological forces at work in Paris and the activities of the metropolitan elites resulting in the breakdown of the ancien regime beaucratic infrastructure. What caused such a breakdown for this second historian? It may be the acts of a small number of revolutionaries that were given general support by the municipal population of Paris and the ripple effect that occurred throughout France was what caused the French Revolution.
So we have dozens, if not hundreds of theories about the French Revolution. How do you put them all into an NPOV textbook? That is my question. If the textbook is being used by a historian who has a political approach to history they want their students to understand the various models that historians from that point of view have presented (in other words, even within different schools of history there are disagreements about the causes of events). Will that historian want her/his textbook to mention other approaches from different schools of history, and not just differing opinions within one model? Yes, possibly, but to really put them all together in the same textbook? I doubt it, because doing so would make it very difficult (if not impossible) for the reader to understand the approach of the differing models within one particular school of historical analysis. A textbook looking at particular perspectives on a particular set of historical events or periods may not be able to cover all approaches and all histories.
Certainly a book can be written about the history of history (we call this historiography) and such a book should be written from a NPOV. This is the place for NPOV in history, but on the level of the approaches of individual historians? In a way, constantly injecting the approaches of other schools of history into a textbook written from a particular point of view would be very disruptive to that particular approach to history. When I have read or discussed history from historians one pays due regard for the historical approach before criticizing it or decontructing it. Of course one can always incorporate footnotes as references to the historiography literature that may be linked to a particular historical contraversy, but to put it all together in a single text? I have never seen a history textbook that did not have a particular point of view about history, propaganda or not. If one were to create such a textbook, first it would be a daunting task, that would require individuals who understood all the different approaches to a specific historical period (and remember that history is not a general subject, a book has to be written for each period of history, each geographical region, each political division and for each of these historians are only operating in specific areas, those studying French Revolutionary history are not the same historians who are studying modern French history, so each period of history and place that has a history will have different historians who take different points of view.
Alex756
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
but for things like Israeli history (I'm not sure if Alex was reffering to page history or actual history, I haven't read his message yet), there is widespread disagreement about basic underlying facts, not to mention people's motives, both of which are essential to creating a good textbook. To represent both of these views in a single textbook could be confusing to many kids below the college level (not all of them, but a significant amount). At the elementary school level, simplification to a DPOV is absolutely necessary so that all of the kids in the class can follow it.
Well, I don't agree with this at all. But until we actually face a concrete example where NPOV is impossible or too burdensome, we should proceed under the assumption that it's our policy and we're sticking to it.
Textbooks for young children need to be clear and simple, something which NPOV has a deficiency in.
I don't agree that there's any _necessary_ tension at all between neutrality and clarity and simplicity. The argument that "we have to be biased, because bias is the only thing simple enough for kids to understand" strikes me as completely spurious.
possible POVs on the topic. We could also write a little about other POVs, but within actual textbooks, we can't give them equal time.
This is where I don't think you really understand NPOV. NPOV does not require 'equal time'. It's perfectly NPOV to limit the scope of a particular book or chapter or article to a specific topic, and to write about that topic in a neutral manner.
--Jimbo
Karl Wick wrote:
This issue has not yet come up in any textbook. However, my hope is that, on occasion, Wikibooks could be home to textbooks advocating a certain point of view. In cases such as these, the POV of the book could be explained in a mission statement at the beginning of the book. That way a creationist textbook could be written and prepared on the site by and for creationists.
I'm not convinced that this requires POV either. We should be able to write an NPOV text about creation science theories, limited in scope to the views of mainstream creation scientists -- not evolutionary biologists, whose views like outside this book's focus (but well inside that /other/ biology textbook!).
-- Toby
I'm not convinced that this requires POV either. We should be able to write an NPOV text about creation science theories, limited in scope to the views of mainstream creation scientists -- not evolutionary biologists, whose views like outside this book's focus (but well inside that /other/ biology textbook!).
-- Toby
Oops. I hadn't heard this idea yet when I wrote my other posts just now. I retract part of my arguments. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org