On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 04:07:47PM -0400, Joseph Reagle wrote:
Neither is appropriate; rather, without slipping into relativism it abstracts to a meta level of representing what people think they know (i.e., a consensus theory of truth) rather than what is (i.e., a strict objectivist stance.)
(above re: NPOV vs. unbiased)
I disagree. NPOV strikes me as an eminently appropriate term. By letting divergent views be heard, and be toned down to largely unbiased language, and coexist within the same blocks of text, a "neutral point of view" is achieved. What, after all, is a more neutral point of view than one that simply includes references to all relevant opposing points of view without judgment between them? That's what we end up with when NPOV policy is diligently observed.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]