To me, the most important aspect of NPOV has nothing to do with being "fair". It has to do with removing your own personal opinion and accepting that of the experts on the topic, thus satisfying verifiability, even if it goes against what you prefer or previously believed.
Given that Britannica is both an easy target here and not NPOV according to your original research, do you have a paradigm for NPOV other than yourself and Wiki? --Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote: On 8/25/06, Fastfission wrote:
scholarship it is very rare that anybody tries to be, or wants to be, neutral: neutrality is seen as "not taking a side" in an important debate, and only the most disingenous or aloof intellectuals would think not taking a side on issues is a good, much less ethical, approach.
I've also noticed that people from academic backgrounds have difficulty with NPOV, because they're being asked to be equally fair to positions they believe are nonsensical, and it goes against the grain.
The thing that always strikes me now when I read the Encyclopaedia Britannica is how POV it is, and I often wonder why we're aiming to be as good as them, when in fact (at our best) we can be so much better.
--------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.