http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANPOV
I think there's some confusion popping up about NPOV, evidenced in
part by Cunc's suggestion that NPOV is a Platonic ideal. I think I
know what he means, and I might agree with him in a way, but I think
other people may be misunderstanding what he's saying. (Or, perhaps I
just disagree with Cunc.)
Geoff Burling wrote:
Well, ask anyone, & you'll most likely be
told, ``I have a perfectly
NPOV. It's the rest of you who are biassed & don't know all of the
important facts." ;-)
If someone says that, then they are confusing NPOV with "objective" or
"unbiases" or "true" or "the whole truth and nothing but the
truth" or
something like that.
But NPOV is a _social_ concept, as opposed to an _epistemological_
concept. What I mean is that NPOV is defend by the agreement of
supporters and opponents of any particular thing.
If someone says that I'm not objective about, say, the crimes of
the Soviet Union, then it's valid for me to respond: "Yes, I am.
It is my opponent who is biased, who is trying to whitewash."
In the wikipedia context, arguments about objectivity or truth
would be endless.
But if someone says that a particular statement of mine is not NPOV,
that's a different matter. Lots of perfectly true and objective
statements are not NPOV, because they would be disputed by people who
are reasonable but mistaken.
As I wrote in the original statement of my idea of NPOV, "Of course,
100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who
will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement
of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is
agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular
points."
What's really true or false enters into NPOV only indirectly.
--Jimbo