On 9/16/2013 7:33 PM, Risker wrote:
I am not certain that neutral point of view applies to all Wikimedia projects. Wikiversity programs may deliberately examine one aspect of a subject while ignoring others, for example. It is difficult to apply the concept of "neutrality" to images and other media, some of which is explicitly non-neutral (see the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed images). I am not sure that "neutral point of view" applies to Wiktionary at all.
Once the topic unit is selected (an article title in Wikipedia, a word in Wiktionary, or a destination in Wikivoyage, for example), I think a concept of neutrality within that topic is not actually that difficult. Whether we require it everywhere is a policy choice, but it is certainly possible. Maintaining the design of a Wikiversity program need not be different in kind from avoiding off-topic digressions in a Wikipedia article.
Obviously it makes sense to adapt our understanding of neutrality to the mission of each project. I believe our projects have generally tried conscientiously to maintain that spirit in a way that suits their context. But although it may superficially appear non-neutral to enforce criteria and boundaries for topic units, I think the answer to that lies in the ambition to universality of our projects. If by simply defining a topic we deviate from neutrality, the way to restore it is by covering all topics.
When dealing with source material, as with Wikimedia Commons or Wikisource, then "neutrality" may be a concept one step removed from the mission of the project. Faithful reproduction may be closer to what we are really looking for. However, neutrality is still a value worth considering in terms of the overall collection of source material, and certainly in how that material gets presented and contextualized in our other projects.
--Michael Snow