Erik wrote:
Magnus-
Oh, if someone creates "textbook.wikipedia.org", could we also have a test wiki for the gunpedia project set up?
Oh boy, that's gonna be hard to keep NPOV ;-)
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.
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.
So textbooks are inherently POV - that is why each time somebody tried to write a textbook in Wikipedia their efforts were quickly thwarted.
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).
Hm. Maybe http://textbook.wikimedia.org would be better... I guess it doesn't really matter because that URL will be replaced by a real name for the project as soon as somebody thinks of one.
--- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 14:41:41 -0700, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com gave utterance to the following:
Erik wrote:
Magnus-
Oh, if someone creates "textbook.wikipedia.org", could we also have a test wiki for the gunpedia project set up?
Oh boy, that's gonna be hard to keep NPOV ;-)
IMO it can't and shouldn't.
Wasn't that just a joke commenting on the apparent typo "gunpedia"?
--- 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
At 07:06 PM 6/22/03 -0700, Anthere wrote:
--- 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.
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.
It should be known and is known, but it's not a medical matter. Similarly, which medicines are legally available depends on the jurisdiction, but the medical effects, benefits, and risks of diamorphine don't change when you cross a national border.
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.
It is "terrible" for some women--not most--and in large part because they have been told that it's wrong, and been taught to expect it to be traumatic.
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.
Which religious point of view? Will you cover the religious point of view that mandates abortion under certain circumstances? Do you expect a medical textbook to explain that the Catholic church once taught that abortion is morally acceptable in early pregnancy, and that the point at which it stopped being acceptable depended on the gender of the fetus?
Those aren't medical issues. They're historical, theological, and/or philosophical ones.
[The post that I'm replying to appeared on <wikiEN-L>. Replies whould go to <textbook-L.>]
Anthere wrote in part:
Maveric149 wrote:
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.
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.
Medical ethics is important in medical education. Thus any medical textbook should speak of (or refer to) discussion of the ethical concerns of a controversial procedure. Abortion definitely qualifies for this (even though /I/ have no ethical concerns about it).
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.
Similarly, the potential pollutive effects of agriculture are necessary for any complete education in agriculture (although I don't know if there's a professional history of this as there is in the case of medicine).
These examples are not the same thing as creationism.
-- Toby
Daniel Mayer 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.
Hmmm, don't be so quick to dismiss NPOV in this context. Consider:
1. Within various disciplines there are legitimate and ongoing disputes of which students should be made aware.
2. If "outside" views are likely to be encountered by students, then students should be made aware of them, including the weakness in their arguments.
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.
Right, but that's not POV-editing, that's just restricting topical focus. Here's how to tell -- an article which describes the procedure neutrally (and in medical detail, say) could be agreed upon by all reasonable people, regardless of their political or ethical views on the matter.
So textbooks are inherently POV - that is why each time somebody tried to write a textbook in Wikipedia their efforts were quickly thwarted.
I do not agree that textbooks are inherently POV. Many *are* POV, but that's a flaw that is likely driven by the non-consensus way in which they are written.
I do agree that textbooks are not the same thing as encyclopedias, but the difference is primarily one of focus, not of POV.
------------------------------
Let me give a specific example. Many textbooks of American history or citizenship for high school students deal with the Bill of Rights. In most cases, the 2nd Amendment is either ignored completely, treated as deprecated, and presented in a fashion that is at odds with the bulk of scholarship.
There is a controversy over the historical meaning of that amendment, and there's room for a high school text to discuss that controversy briefly.
Why doesn't this happen?
Because the textbooks are POV, written by people, probably honest but not expert in this particularly issue, who have swallowed a particular political line of thought. It's bias, pure and simple.
Textbooks should be NPOV, just as encyclopedia articles should be NPOV.
--Jimbo