On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Again, I disagree. Even if it is on a project page defining Wikipedia, it's defining Wikipedia according to what the foundation's definition of Wikipedia is. Therefore, the statement itself still comes from a neutral (objective) point of view. Again the actual inherent points of view implied by words are not relevant when the words themselves are being used to repeat the foundation's definition of Wikipedia, or it's mission.
Wikipedia's mission could be "to fight jihadists for the glory of George Bush in Afghanistan". If that was how the foundation defines Wikipedia, then it is entirely npov for the Wikipedia:About page to define Wikipedia as a project "to fight jihadists for the glory of George Bush in Afghanistan" because that's merely an objective restatement of what the foundation itself defines Wikipedia as. The fact that the words themselves are charged or biased, or opinionated, does not make the restating of them carry the same point of view.
Wikipedia is whatever the foundation says it is by definition. It is what it is. And saying such does not inherently carry a point of view.
I didn't read all of the footnotes at Wikipedia:About article, but I think that I may conclude that the definition is not taken from any WMF document, but it is a self-definition. And even if Wikipedia:About stays "According to WMF, Wikipedia is this and that<ref1>", it is again a self-definition because it is the place where the entity defines itself (no matter which POV is that; if it is defined by WMF, it is WMF POV, if it is defined by the community, it is CPOV). But, it is obvious that we don't agree about that :) I understand what do you want to say and I may say that your position is understandable from your POV ;)
So, I may say that I found a disputable example. Better examples are hundreds (maybe thousands?) of pages under Wikipedia: name space of any Wikipedia which describe rules related to content creation, maintenance and community regulation; sentences may be "vandals are bad", "trolls are bad", "civility is good"; also, Five pillars of Wikipedia are not [as a whole] a part of Wikipedia definitions given by WMF; all decisions made by ArbCom or community on some poll; etc. etc. -- nothing of that is NPOV; everything is more or less nicely worded POV.