Just some blue sky thinking:
Our neutral point of view policy has aroused a fair bit of discussion at [[WP:NPOV]] recently, and this has got me thinking:
We've all seen arguments where people keep arguing that this is "POV" or someone is being "POV" where in normal English we'd just call something an "opinion" and note that someone has an opinion on something. Indeed, the made-up term POV is bandied around usually to mean something along the lines of - you are wrong, I am right, and because it is a NPOV issue, the point is non-negotiable, which isn't a very good place to start from if the issue is to be resolved. Plus far too many people read NPOV as equating to "no point of view" as opposed to the real requirement, which is to write from a neutral viewpoint.
My blue sky thinking (which I don't claim to be a panacea, just an interesting thought) is why don't we rename the policy page [[Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint]] and make the shortcut link to it [[WP:NEUVIEW]] (or [[WP:NEUTVIEW]]). It goes without saying that the underlying concept behind the policy would remain completely unchanged - just the name of the page would change - plus it would enhance people's perceptions that it is about requiring a neutral viewpoint, rather than no viewpoint, or neutrality more generally: it would help define the policy in positive terms and (and perhaps I'm going too far here:) ) may help stop content disputes escalating in scale and viciousness.
Kind regards
Jon (jguk)
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
\Just some blue sky thinking:
Our neutral point of view policy has aroused a fair bit of discussion at [[WP:NPOV]] recently, and this has got me thinking:
We've all seen arguments where people keep arguing that this is "POV" or someone is being "POV" where in normal English we'd just call something an "opinion" and note that someone has an opinion on something. Indeed, the made- up term POV is bandied around usually to mean something along the lines of - you are wrong, I am right, and because it is a NPOV issue, the point is non- negotiable, which isn't a very good place to start from if the issue is to be resolved. Plus far too many people read NPOV as equating to "no point of view" as opposed to the real requirement, which is to write from a neutral viewpoint.
My blue sky thinking (which I don't claim to be a panacea, just an interesting thought) is why don't we rename the policy page [[Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint]] and make the shortcut link to it [[WP:NEUVIEW]] (or [[WP:NEUTVIEW]]). It goes without saying that the underlying concept behind the policy would remain completely unchanged - just the name of the page would change - plus it would enhance people's perceptions that it is about requiring a neutral viewpoint, rather than no viewpoint, or neutrality more generally: it would help define the policy in positive terms and (and perhaps I'm going too far here:) ) may help stop content disputes escalating in scale and viciousness.
That might work. On the other hand, that might be about as effective as changing "Votes for Deletion" to "Articles for Deletion". Renaming things only serves to disguise problems in a quasi-Orwellian manner-- it doesn't really solve them.
While we're at it, anyone care to deal with the term "POV-pusher"? It seems to me legitimate for someone to take an underrepresented but valid point of view (eg, "The US is not the centre of everything worth describing on Wikipedia"), and systematically adapting articles to include this point of view. If someone distorts an article to the point where it over-represents a minority viewpoint, that would be one thing. But systematically expanding the range of viewpoints in articles to include a more global viewpoint...
Steve
On 1/25/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
\Just some blue sky thinking:
Our neutral point of view policy has aroused a fair bit of discussion at [[WP:NPOV]] recently, and this has got me thinking:
We've all seen arguments where people keep arguing that this is "POV" or someone is being "POV" where in normal English we'd just call something an "opinion" and note that someone has an opinion on something. Indeed, the made- up term POV is bandied around usually to mean something along the lines of - you are wrong, I am right, and because it is a NPOV issue, the point is non- negotiable, which isn't a very good place to start from if the issue is to be resolved. Plus far too many people read NPOV as equating to "no point of view" as opposed to the real requirement, which is to write from a neutral viewpoint.
My blue sky thinking (which I don't claim to be a panacea, just an interesting thought) is why don't we rename the policy page [[Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint]] and make the shortcut link to it [[WP:NEUVIEW]] (or [[WP:NEUTVIEW]]). It goes without saying that the underlying concept behind the policy would remain completely unchanged - just the name of the page would change - plus it would enhance people's perceptions that it is about requiring a neutral viewpoint, rather than no viewpoint, or neutrality more generally: it would help define the policy in positive terms and (and perhaps I'm going too far here:) ) may help stop content disputes escalating in scale and viciousness.
That might work. On the other hand, that might be about as effective as changing "Votes for Deletion" to "Articles for Deletion". Renaming things only serves to disguise problems in a quasi-Orwellian manner-- it doesn't really solve them.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
While we're at it, anyone care to deal with the term "POV-pusher"? It seems to me legitimate for someone to take an underrepresented but valid point of view (eg, "The US is not the centre of everything worth describing on Wikipedia"), and systematically adapting articles to include this point of view. If someone distorts an article to the point where it over-represents a minority viewpoint, that would be one thing. But systematically expanding the range of viewpoints in articles to include a more global viewpoint...
POV pushers exist, and if we ban the term, we'll come up with another term to replace it. We have to realize that increasingly, there are editors who act in bad faith to popularize a given viewpoint or agenda.
On 1/27/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
While we're at it, anyone care to deal with the term "POV-pusher"?
I believe the word 'pusher' connotes more than wanting to improve Wikipedia's balance; it implies a wish to over-promote a certain viewpoint and especially to REMOVE viewpoints the pusher disagrees with.
Of course, some POV-pushers THINK they're just correcting bias.
-Matt
I, too, am sick and tired of the acronym "POV" thrown around as an insult. I doubt we can gather enough steam to deprecate the [[WP:NPOV]] shortcut but my suggestion for an alternative would be [[WP:NEUTRAL]].
Regards, Haukur
Just some blue sky thinking:
Our neutral point of view policy has aroused a fair bit of discussion at [[WP:NPOV]] recently, and this has got me thinking:
We've all seen arguments where people keep arguing that this is "POV" or someone is being "POV" where in normal English we'd just call something an "opinion" and note that someone has an opinion on something. Indeed, the made-up term POV is bandied around usually to mean something along the lines of - you are wrong, I am right, and because it is a NPOV issue, the point is non-negotiable, which isn't a very good place to start from if the issue is to be resolved. Plus far too many people read NPOV as equating to "no point of view" as opposed to the real requirement, which is to write from a neutral viewpoint.
My blue sky thinking (which I don't claim to be a panacea, just an interesting thought) is why don't we rename the policy page [[Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint]] and make the shortcut link to it [[WP:NEUVIEW]] (or [[WP:NEUTVIEW]]). It goes without saying that the underlying concept behind the policy would remain completely unchanged - just the name of the page would change - plus it would enhance people's perceptions that it is about requiring a neutral viewpoint, rather than no viewpoint, or neutrality more generally: it would help define the policy in positive terms and (and perhaps I'm going too far here:) ) may help stop content disputes escalating in scale and viciousness.
Kind regards
Jon (jguk)
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I've begun making a conscious effort to stop using "POV" and instead use the word bias, which is really more appropriate as a descriptor for bad behavior vis a vis this policy.
-k
On 1/25/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
I, too, am sick and tired of the acronym "POV" thrown around as an insult. I doubt we can gather enough steam to deprecate the [[WP:NPOV]] shortcut but my suggestion for an alternative would be [[WP:NEUTRAL]].
Regards, Haukur
Just some blue sky thinking:
Our neutral point of view policy has aroused a fair bit of discussion
at
[[WP:NPOV]] recently, and this has got me thinking:
We've all seen arguments where people keep arguing that this is "POV"
or
someone is being "POV" where in normal English we'd just call something an "opinion" and note that someone has an opinion on something. Indeed, the made-up
term
POV is bandied around usually to mean something along the lines of - you
are
wrong, I am right, and because it is a NPOV issue, the point is
non-negotiable,
which isn't a very good place to start from if the issue is to be resolved. Plus
far
too many people read NPOV as equating to "no point of view" as opposed to the real requirement, which is to write from a neutral viewpoint.
My blue sky thinking (which I don't claim to be a panacea, just an interesting thought) is why don't we rename the policy page [[Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint]] and make the shortcut link to it [[WP:NEUVIEW]] (or [[WP:NEUTVIEW]]). It goes without saying that the underlying concept behind the policy would remain completely unchanged - just the name of the page would change - plus it would enhance people's perceptions that it is about requiring a neutral viewpoint, rather than no viewpoint, or neutrality more generally: it would help define the
policy
in positive terms and (and perhaps I'm going too far here:) ) may help stop content disputes escalating in scale and viciousness.
Kind regards
Jon (jguk)
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l