Anthere wrote:
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.
No - you are totally wrong (stings a bit doesn't it? In the future it would be nice if you showed some respect to the opinions of others. OK?)
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.
You are confusing a completely liberal education with the very real fact that most courses are designed to get students through a certain /limited/ set of material as efficiently as possible. In none, not one, of my college textbooks on biology is there any serious mention of Creationist viewpoints. That is /irrelevant/ information to have in a college-level biology textbook. In short; there are /separate/ classes that deal with that subject.
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.
Now that is a nicer way to disagree. Was that hard?
By thus doing, we will only propose technical books, cold and disincarnated. That is against what some people consider education is.
Maybe what /you/ consider to be what education is. You are more than welcome to write liberal education textbooks that treat each area taught in a comprehensive, inter-disciplinary way. But don't stop other people from making more technically-focused works since that is what actually gets used in most college classrooms (at least in the US).
Also, most people take /separate/ classes in history, science and ethics. So the history of the how an element has been used is irrelevant to the chemistry student taking inorganic chemistry; ALL that is relevant to that student is is the chemical reactions of the element, and its properties and placement in the periodic table (of course a nice and short intro on why the element is important would be a good thing to have but not vital to the subject matter). The other stuff is optional background information that is easily found in the element's encyclopedia article.
The goal of an encyclopedia is to present a summary of the sum total of all human knowledge known about a particular subject. The goal of a textbook is to focus on one particular part of that knowledge so that students can learn about that aspect in detail.
We /already/ have a comprehensive resource in the encyclopedia for all the info about a certain element. Let's not confuse encyclopedia articles with textbook entries or otherwise a textbook project will not be differentiated enough to exist for long if at all.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I've just created a separate mailing list for discussion on the proposed Wikipedia / Wikimedia-based textbook projects. Those interested in this, please sign up at: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
If someone more into the subject wants to take over administration of the list, please do. (It's the usual list admin password.)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthere wrote:
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.
No - you are totally wrong (stings a bit doesn't it? In the future it would be nice if you showed some respect to the opinions of others. OK?)
Well, no. Actually, it does not sting. Sorry. I accept being told I am wrong :-) As for respect, I had no intention to lack respect to you. In my mind, saying *here* (on opinion, rather than facts) "wrong" and "disagreeing" are similar, except for the fact the second one is tougher to write :-) By "wrong" here, I mean "not agreeing". I thought that was clear. Apologies. All what I will wrote below is "not agreeing".
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.
You are confusing a completely liberal education with the very real fact that most courses are designed to get students through a certain /limited/ set of material as efficiently as possible. In none, not one, of my college textbooks on biology is there any serious mention of Creationist viewpoints. That is /irrelevant/ information to have in a college-level biology textbook. In short; there are /separate/ classes that deal with that subject.
It is your opinion that it is not relevant. It is not everyone opinion. In France, most biology textbooks introduce good notions of economics and ethics. They do not restrict themselves entirely to the tech topic. I am surprised to read that we have a "completely liberal education" :-)
And in college books, such as in agronomical textbooks, all these are certainly included, to quite a length. Because we learn/practice animal/vegetal manipulations and experimentation that may be questionable to some people.
I think I know more of american education than you do about french education. In short, there are *no* separate classes that deal with that subject. Teachings are integrated in a common class. Did you know that ? Our educational systems are *very* different. And what you call irrelevant is for us the basics of our education. American tend to know very well a little bunch of topics (for which they are very efficient as soon as they look for a work), while we learn superficially many different things, and how to learn about them by ourselves. This is true at least in the type of schools I went to :-).
Now, I do not know if british system is nearer than yours, are nearer than ours. I think the question deserve to be ask.
I don't say your system or our system is better. Both have benefits and both drawbacks. But please, do consider that education systems are not "identical" to american system. And that english textbooks could maybe be useable by more than american people.
What I say is just that you should not say "it's irrelevant. Final point."
I think that it is not good to bluntly say it would "of course" have not to respect NPOV but DPOV. This is an important point, which must be discussed together. The outcome does not appear as much obvious to me as it seems to you.
Also, before any discussion on this topic, I think the scope of the project should be better defined. Are we talking of college textbook or are younger students also considered ? If these are papers after a while, how are students gonna learn from mere links to an online encyclopedia ?
Before you say "well, do whatever you want in french, and less us deal with english matters", I will just say that potentially textbooks are a wikipedia wide project. Right now, all wikipedias have a set of common rules, such as gfdl, neutrality, collaboration. We agree *together* on all those rules.
If textbook project is gonna be wikipedia wide, but each language respect very different rules, because no initial polite discussion was made on the topic, it will be detrimental to the project, because it won't be a common proposition.
I don't think any textbook done along your definition of what is good, would be any good by french education standards. I would certainly not support our educational system to suggest them to students. Because it does not fit with our principles.
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.
Now that is a nicer way to disagree. Was that hard?
And I am not sure that here I am the one showing less respect to another.
By thus doing, we will only propose technical books, cold and disincarnated. That is against what some people consider education is.
Maybe what /you/ consider to be what education is. You are more than welcome to write liberal education textbooks that treat each area taught in a comprehensive, inter-disciplinary way. But don't stop other people from making more technically-focused works since that is what actually gets used in most college classrooms (at least in the US).
As I said, you seem to be proposing a fork even before the project has started. Curious. Well, maybe is it like the sifter projects with kids censorships. One project for each country. I think we will be loosing energy and time if we do that.
Also, most people take /separate/ classes in history, science and ethics. So the history of the how an element has been used is irrelevant to the chemistry student taking inorganic chemistry; ALL that is relevant to that student is is the chemical reactions of the element, and its properties and placement in the periodic table (of course a nice and short intro on why the element is important would be a good thing to have but not vital to the subject matter). The other stuff is optional background information that is easily found in the element's encyclopedia article.
The goal of an encyclopedia is to present a summary of the sum total of all human knowledge known about a particular subject. The goal of a textbook is to focus on one particular part of that knowledge so that students can learn about that aspect in detail.
We /already/ have a comprehensive resource in the encyclopedia for all the info about a certain element. Let's not confuse encyclopedia articles with textbook entries or otherwise a textbook project will not be differentiated enough to exist for long if at all.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
you are right. But making links will have no sense when textbooks are printed.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On 6/22/03 11:22 PM, "Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthere wrote:
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.
No - you are totally wrong (stings a bit doesn't it? In the future it would be nice if you showed some respect to the opinions of others. OK?)
Mav, you might try remembering English isn't her native language before you assume she's not showing respect for your opinions.
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.
You are confusing a completely liberal education with the very real fact that most courses are designed to get students through a certain /limited/ set of material as efficiently as possible. In none, not one, of my college textbooks on biology is there any serious mention of Creationist viewpoints. That is /irrelevant/ information to have in a college-level biology textbook. In short; there are /separate/ classes that deal with that subject.
Are there nonserious mentions of Creationist viewpoints?
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.
Now that is a nicer way to disagree. Was that hard?
Now, that's being rude.
Boy, this textbook idea is opening up a whole ugly kettle of fish. We even already have new poorly conceived acronyms.
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthere wrote:
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.
No - you are totally wrong (stings a bit doesn't it? In the future it would be nice if you showed some respect to the opinions of others. OK?)
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.
You are confusing a completely liberal education with the very real fact that most courses are designed to get students through a certain /limited/ set of material as efficiently as possible. In none, not one, of my college textbooks on biology is there any serious mention of Creationist viewpoints. That is /irrelevant/ information to have in a college-level biology textbook. In short; there are /separate/ classes that deal with that subject.
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.
Now that is a nicer way to disagree. Was that hard?
By thus doing, we will only propose technical books, cold and disincarnated. That is against what some people consider education is.
Maybe what /you/ consider to be what education is. You are more than welcome to write liberal education textbooks that treat each area taught in a comprehensive, inter-disciplinary way. But don't stop other people from making more technically-focused works since that is what actually gets used in most college classrooms (at least in the US).
Also, most people take /separate/ classes in history, science and ethics. So the history of the how an element has been used is irrelevant to the chemistry student taking inorganic chemistry; ALL that is relevant to that student is is the chemical reactions of the element, and its properties and placement in the periodic table (of course a nice and short intro on why the element is important would be a good thing to have but not vital to the subject matter). The other stuff is optional background information that is easily found in the element's encyclopedia article.
The goal of an encyclopedia is to present a summary of the sum total of all human knowledge known about a particular subject. The goal of a textbook is to focus on one particular part of that knowledge so that students can learn about that aspect in detail.
We /already/ have a comprehensive resource in the encyclopedia for all the info about a certain element. Let's not confuse encyclopedia articles with textbook entries or otherwise a textbook project will not be differentiated enough to exist for long if at all.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
The goal of this textbook certainly isn't to be used. It is to be a good textbook. Which idea would make a better textbook, I think, would be the off-topic mentionings. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com