On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 07:44:45PM +0200, Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
I fail to see how that applies to what I said, actually. I was discussing our NPOV policy, not objectivity. The NPOV policy is something we approach by admitting all verifiable opinions as statements of fact regarding the existence of such opinions. It is not an attempt to produce a truly objective view of the universe. None of us is God, but we can all aspire to peacefully, and without undue judgmentalism, incorporate divergent views on whether or not God exists into our encyclopedia.
It applied at least to what Steve said. He used the argument of cultural diversity (transferred on wikipedia in wikipedias in zeveral languages) to indicatethe inaccurateness of the NPOV-ideal. I wanted to oppose that.
You are right in saying objectivity and NPOV are not the same. Neutrality originates form Latin "neuter" mening neither (ne-uter "none of both"), so a Neutral Point of View simply means that there are at least two factions with both/ each a fair deal of followers and that the statements agree with neither/ none of them. So, I agree with you and I am convinced Wikipedia can achieve this.
Ahh. That makes sense. With that, I think I can agree.
-- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]