On Sep 28, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Roberto Corda
<roberto.ilcorda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From:
"Milos Rancic" <millosh(a)gmail.com>
2008/9/27 Roberto Corda <roberto.ilcorda(a)gmail.com>om>:
[[
http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lese_%C3%ABl_piemont%C3%A8is_versio…
|
...
Traslate (rough): '''we want to teach respect to all the language
an
we want that people start to use local languages.''
Personally I agree with that thesis, but I also think that is POV
and
it must be deleted from the page (and maybe published elsewhere)
This is under Wikipedia name space. Under that name space CPOV
(Community POV) is applied, not NPOV.
What?
Sorry but it doesn't makes sense. Anyway they changed.
Simply, you can't describe your aims by using NPOV. It is always some
kind of POV. For example, claim like "Wikipedia's purpose is to bring
free knowledge" is not NPOV, but very POV: you are defining what is
the purpose; free knowledge is also a very POV position. All of that
is defined by community consensus.
You may criticize their position if you don't agree, but you can't
urge that something should be written in NPOV if it is not possible.
That's not quite accurate. If the stated purpose of Wikipedia is to
"bring free knowledge" than saying so is precisely NPOV, because it's
a mere restatement of what the foundation claims its purpose is. It's
not a point of view: It's an objective metric based on how the
organization in question defines itself.
You're confusing the properties of the position with the statement of
the position. Yes, free knowledge is a point of view. Saying that the
Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement is to bring free knowledge is
not a point of view: it's an objective restatement of a fact (the fact
being that the WMF identifies this as their mission statement).
-Dan