On 11/22/02 3:26 AM, "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
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.
What's what "NPOV is an ideal" is? A definition? "an ideal" isn't a definition.
I'm referring to the meta article, not the statement.
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.
OK, so again we seem to agree on NPOV -- except that I can't see where this contradicts the definition on [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. I mean, I get *everything* (it seems), and basically agree, except the idea that it has to do with any *definition*.
I press because I do want to understand you, and I sense that you have a point in using that word. Please, define "neutral point of view".
(Or tell me where on meta or something this has happened before. I can't find any extensive discussion involving you now, but I'm sure that some must be preserved somewhere.)
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).
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 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.
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).