I receive the WikiEN-l "digest" format so it doesn't clutter up my e-mail
with ten messages. A drawback is that I have to edit out when I reply.
> From: WJhonson(a)aol.com
> In a message dated 4/13/2008 6:03:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> ian.woollard(a)gmail.com writes:
>
> No, that's a common misconception; and if it was true, that would
> rapidly create an empty wikipedia, *everything* written, *ever*, is
> somebody's point of view. For example, Newton's Principia was Newton's
> point of view, but we don't remove that from the wiki ;-)
>
>
> ----------------
> NPOV does not mandate that our sources themselves are neutral.
> What it states is that *we* write from a neutral frame, not that they must
> have.
>
> We, collectively, are not *an* author, nor a source. We are Q, the
> collective mind, yet individuals.
> Our collaborative effort itself must express a neutral point-of-view,
> although each of us individually, and our sources, individually may have a
> non-neutral point-of-view.
>
> Neutrality arises as a function of the collective effort. Or at least
> that
> is the goal at which we aim.
If the second definition of neutrality (no point of view) is followed, Ian
is right that we would have an empty encyclopedia, or a very naked one.
Mostly everything is someone's point of view, and I believe since that is
so, we should not try to hide points of view. That is all the nonexistent
neutrality is: trying to hide points of view, because it is impossible to
have an encyclopedia while not using points of view. We should admit our
biases, keep it transparent, and not deny the existence of our opinions.
Many of the things people call "facts" are actually the opinions of people,
or their views of things. Keep in mind that is my opinion.
> From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
>> On 14/04/2008, WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>> "Neutral point-of-view" is not a point-of-view, it is the absence of any
>>> point-of-view.
>
> on 4/13/08 9:02 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard(a)gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> No, that's a common misconception; and if it was true, that would
>> rapidly create an empty wikipedia, *everything* written, *ever*, is
>> somebody's point of view. For example, Newton's Principia was Newton's
>> point of view, but we don't remove that from the wiki ;-)
>>
> Ian, we're writing an encyclopedia. We're reporting on facts. Something
> either happened or it didn't. Newton's Principia may have been his point
> of
> view, but stating it in an encyclopedia is not.
>
> Marc
Encyclopedias base themselves off of the opinions of scientists and the
authors of the article. Have you ever considered that "facts" and "truth"
are just viewpoints of the world and things inside it that many agree on?
Plus, we all have opinions. There is no point in hiding them like no one
knows they're there. If you thought an encyclopedia could exist without
opinions, consider it this way: take away all the opinions, observations,
and viewpoints from the entire planet, and you have lies. Science is the
observation of scientists, who have also formed opinions and shared them
with other scientists.If you thought a collection of information
(encyclopedia) could exist without opinions, wrong. Newsflash Marc: you have
one too.
> From: "Ron Ritzman" <ritzman(a)gmail.com>
> On 4/13/08, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, that's a common misconception; and if it was true, that would
>> rapidly create an empty wikipedia, *everything* written, *ever*, is
>> somebody's point of view. For example, Newton's Principia was Newton's
>> point of view, but we don't remove that from the wiki ;-)
>
> If you read an article about Newton, you will read about "Newton's"
> point of view. You should not be able to determine the "author's"
> point of view.
Why not? If the author admits zir bias, then why should ze hide it? It is my
_opinion_ that the world is composed of ~ 99.5% opinions and the rest fact,
and that pure fact would not be much in an encyclopedia.