From: "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com 2008/9/27 Roberto Corda roberto.ilcorda@gmail.com:
[[http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lese_%C3%ABl_piemont%C3%A8is_version... ... 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.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Roberto Corda roberto.ilcorda@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com 2008/9/27 Roberto Corda roberto.ilcorda@gmail.com:
[[http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lese_%C3%ABl_piemont%C3%A8is_version... ... 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.
On Sep 28, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Roberto Corda roberto.ilcorda@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com 2008/9/27 Roberto Corda roberto.ilcorda@gmail.com:
[[http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lese_%C3%ABl_piemont%C3%A8is_version... | ... 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
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
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).
I think you didn't understand my intention. Saying so in the article about Wikipedia on Wikipedia is according to NPOV if it is a "Wikipedia statement". However, I was talking about the page which defines Wikipedia at Wikipedia (let's say Wikipedia:About). Defining yourself is not NPOV, it is very POV; actually, strictly speaking, even the word "encyclopedia" defines that we belong to a particular (positivist) ideology. (No matter how that ideology is common these days.) And unlike a definition at the article Wikipedia (which should be NPOV article), definition at the article Wikipedia:About is doing a self-definition.
On Sep 28, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
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).
I think you didn't understand my intention. Saying so in the article about Wikipedia on Wikipedia is according to NPOV if it is a "Wikipedia statement". However, I was talking about the page which defines Wikipedia at Wikipedia (let's say Wikipedia:About). Defining yourself is not NPOV, it is very POV; actually, strictly speaking, even the word "encyclopedia" defines that we belong to a particular (positivist) ideology. (No matter how that ideology is common these days.) And unlike a definition at the article Wikipedia (which should be NPOV article), definition at the article Wikipedia:About is doing a self-definition.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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.
-Dan
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.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org