>> I'd rather start with how "neutral point of view" is defined on
Wikipedia proper: as presenting conflicting extremes. The lengthy article
there repeated presents neutral or unbiased writing in terms of
conflicting viewpoints. Framing knowledge in terms of conflict is not the
best way to do it. It can be a helpful starting point, but a more complete
synthesis is desired (and should be possible). <<
This objection is very obscure. Neutrality is defined "as presenting
conflicting extremes"? No, that's not how it's defined. Certainly, if
there *are* conflicting *extremes* on an issue, then they're presented,
yes. Is the objection instead that neutrality shouldn't be defined in
terms of conflict *at all*? In that case I'd say the whole reason for the
neutrality policy is that people will naturally fall into conflict over
what positions are true (or--of course, this isn't the same thing--have
adequate "evidentiary support"). The neutrality policy specifies what we
should do in such cases. If there's concern about stating what is
supported by evidence, we must acknowledge that there are different views
on that in any significant controversy.
"A more complete synthesis" might be desired by you, but it is not the
place of an *encyclopedia* to proffer such a thing. Individuals and
interested groups do that.
>> And statements like this: "according to our understanding, when one
writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate
or carefully but subtly massage the reader into believing) that any
particular view at all is correct" are just wrong. <<
And why are they "just wrong"? Who, besides you, thinks they are "just
wrong"? In fact, that particular point is not only correct about what
Wikipedia policy is, it should be placed in neon lights and shouted from
the hilltops and brandished in the face of people who use Wikipdia to
further their agenda.
>> And the distinction between "facts" and "opinions", as written, is just
not helpful. "Mars is a planet", where "planet" is a "massive object that
orbits the Sun" has only been a "fact" for a few hundred years. "God
exists" has been a "fact" for much longer than that. <<
What's "unhelpful" about it? I find unexplained and unfair criticisms
unhelpful. Suppose the text said instead, as you say here, "Mars is a
massive object that orbits the Sun." That's something that virtually
everyone now agrees upon; therefore, according to the definition in the
text it is a "fact" (something that we would all acknowledge to be fact,
rather than opinion). What difference does it make that it was not a
"fact," in this sense, five hundred years ago? The text explicitly
acknowledges that "facts" can actually be falsehoods and "opinions" can be
true, and that "facts" can change. Is there something *wrong* with that
state of affairs, and do you think there's anything we can do about it?
It has never been and certainly is not a *fact*, by the definition given
on the page, that God exists. The text actually explicitly uses that
proposition as a prime example of an opinion.
>> The whole page could be greatly improved and shortened by stating that
the NPOV relies on evidentiary criteria. That is to say, all statements
are assertions which rely on some form of evidence and definition, both of
which should be explicated somewhere, preferably within Wikipedia itself
(though primary sources should simply be referenced). <<
This would hardly be an improvement: it would entail completely undoing
the neutrality policy so that it does not concern neutrality. The issue
of providing support and definitions, while certainly important, is
strictly speaking *orthogonal* to the issue of the bias of a text or lack
thereof. To be sure, a fair presentation of all views will, in perhaps
most cases, require definitions and support (i.e., the support offered by
the proponents of the respective views). But any neutrality or lack of
bias worthy of the name *requires* stating competing views fairly and not
taking sides. That's simply what neutrality, in presenting controversial
issues, *is*. "Providing evidence and definitions" is a good thing, but
it isn't what neutrality is, even if neutrality in many cases requires it.
If the suggestion is instead (and it's made none too clearly if so) that
we can simply do away with the practice of presenting alternative views
fairly, and instead present as correct the view that has the best
evidence--good luck with making your case. That's precisely what we're
trying to avoid *arguing about* with this policy.
By the way, certainly, we can admit that the page *might* need to be
changed. That the page in fact does need to be changed in any particular
way receives not the least support from the above.
Larry
--
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell