Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Some Wikipedians have been using the terms NPOV and POV as synonyms for "objective" and "biased", respectively. This is an error, if I may say so.
Yes. When I made up the term "Neutral Point of View" I specifically chose to avoid the term "objective", in part to clarify that this is a term of art, a social concept designed to maximize the possibility of harmonious work, rather than a purely epistemological concept like 'true' or 'objective'.
I think that, in a sense, NPOV writing is a _subset_ of objective writing, i.e. it is writing so that a very wide variety of people can give assent.
Some contributors, possibly Khranus among them, want articles to reflect REALITY and OBJECTIVE TRUTH. That is all well and good, for the 99% of topics which are uncontroversial.
It is when contributors disagree about what is real and objectively true, that we need to write from the Neutral Point of View. We must say, for example, that some people believe dolphins are smarter than human beings, while other people consider their intelligence to be much less than that of humans.
We cannot and must not try to ANSWER the question, "Are dolphins smarter?" with a yes or no answer. We can only describe the various Points of View (POV) of researchers in the field, as well as science fiction writers, drama writers, historical legends or anything else which relates to the question.
Please, please understand that NPOV is not "objective truth".
I think this was all very well said.
NPOV is not abhorrent to the objective truth, nor opposed to it. It's just narrower, more cautious, more inclusive.
--Jimbo