--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Oh boy, that's gonna be hard to keep NPOV ;-) (no
Mav)
IMO it can't and shouldn't. The POV of whatever textbook is being worked on should be a "Discipline Point Of View." This means that if a textbook is on Biology then the POV of biologists should be in the book. There will be neutrality rules but they only apply from within whatever discipline the textbook is being written for. So for example a chapter on evolution would focus on the major differing views on the subject that exist from within the biological sciences but it would not seriously consider the POV of groups outside the biological sciences.
The reason why our encyclopedias have to be NPOV is because our audience is a general one. The reason why our textbooks have to be DPOV is because our audience is very focused (the biology student, for example) and we need to bring that student through the material in a logical and efficient way.
No. Wrong. One do not have to throw away NPOV just for the reason the audience is more focused. That has nothing to do.
Logical and efficient is totally compatible with NPOV. What you suggest is "cutting" very important information, that students will later need to make informed decisions. Removing infos is neither logical nor efficient in the long term.
Same thing is true for a section of a medical textbook on abortion ; we leave out most of the history and the different political views on the subject and just talk about the procedure itself and maybe have a single paragraph at the end sating something about access to the procedure and that risks doctors face when they choose to specialize in this area.
I disagree with you Mav. By thus doing, we will only propose technical books, cold and disincarnated. That is against what some people consider education is.
There are some aspects, even of technical education, that require understanding of politics, that require ethical information. A book limiting itself to the pure technical gestures to apply is *bad*. Very bad.
This is particularly true in the biological domain you cite. Teaching abortion just from the technical procedure is an error. If only because abortion is allowed in some places, not allowed in others, and this should be known. Also because an abortion is a terrible act for most women to undergo, and *no* doctor should know it only from the tech point of view. He should be aware of the psychological impact of such a gesture, if he wants to propose and to proceed with such an act with the physical and psychological consent of the mother-to-be. Also because he should be aware of all the limits to such an act from a religious point of view.
Offering bare technical teaching is wrong.
Similarly, in agriculture, it makes no sense to *just* understand how fertilization works, if you do not understand the pollution it creates, the CAP rules about N uses and the incentives. Just providing the tech info is just giving enough information for survival, not for thinking and making good decisions.
So textbooks are inherently POV - that is why each time somebody tried to write a textbook in Wikipedia their efforts were quickly thwarted.
Sorry ? Do we have examples ?
Textbooks are organized in a very different way than an encyclopedia and they also have a specific audience. These two things make textbook material completely incompatible with Wikipedia. Thus a separate project is needed (and probably a few tweaks to the software to make it easy to have chapters).
Along with chapters on the ethical aspects of creating GMOs, using Xenogreffes, offering life to abnormal babies. Yes. Many chapters. Thank god, there is no room limitation.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com