On 14/04/2008, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 14/04/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@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@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.
No, we're reporting notable opinions. The *only* 'facts' in the wikipedia should be verifiable, notable opinions.
Something either happened or it didn't.
The wikipedia doesn't assume that. The wikipedia is quite happy to have people saying both that Jesus was resurrected as well as not, for example.
Newton's Principia may have been his point of view, but stating it in an encyclopedia is not.
Careful here, Newton was a very great physicist, and his POV is entirely notable. We can have lots and lots of it in the wikipedia without violating any of the policies or guidelines in any way at all.
There's absolutely no prohibition against having POV in the wikipedia; quite the contrary, it's just that it must be *notable* POV and not OR of the editors or anything like that.
Marc