On 11/22/02 3:26 AM, "Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia(a)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).