On 11/21/02 2:35 AM, "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
In fact, anything that includes *all* of human knowledge must be POV.
Yup. I would much rather the official Wikipedia definition of neutral point of view actually gibe with the meaning of "neutral point of view" (see [[m:NPOV is an ideal]]) than the convoluted redefinition that stands now.
Hum, I pretty much agree with that Meta-Wikipedia article, but I don't see how the *definition* of NPOV is at fault. No article will ever perfectly satisfy the current definition, which is therefore an ideal, and I don't see any proposal for replacing that definition.
That's what "NPOV is an ideal" is.
Surely you don't want Wikipedia to state as fact that George W. Bush is an awful US President! But if it doesn't, then it won't contain that piece of knowledge; it will at best only contain the knowledge that certain people hold that view for certain reasons. (Well, it might contain that piece of knowledge for a little while, but that would surely be quickly replaced by a more NPOV version, as we strive ever more for the elusive NPOV ideal.)
Exactly.