The Cunctator wrote:
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).
I've just looked at the "NPOV" page, and it seems to me that NPOV
needs
to be applied recursively. It makes statements that support reliance on
experts without any guidelines about how we can determine when experts
are a big part of the problem Expert opinion is still just opinion.
The article includes the following "FAQ" type of discussion:
10.4 But wait. I find the optimism about science vs.
pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that
pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on
pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numercial
majorities of its followers to force their views on the anyone
they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who
literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that
the Holocaust never occured, the result is that it will
(inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can
be termed evil.
Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy
certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity"
to completely repugnant views. It does state that we must not take a
stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from
representing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the
strong arguments against the repugnant views; from describing the
strong moral repugnance that many decent people feel toward them; and
so forth.
Hence, on the one hand, Wikipedia does not officially take a stand
even on such obvious issues, but on the other, it will not look as
though we (the authors of Wikipedia) had accorded equal credibility to
morally repugnant views. Given that the authors of Wikipedia represent
a rough cross-section of the educated public, our readers can expect
us to have a similar cross-section of opinion about extremism: most of
us abhor it.
This seems to start with a controversy about science and ends up in
moral repugnance over holocaust denial. Is the implication here that
pseudo-science is not just false but morally repugnant as well? I find
the term "pseudo-science" itself to fail NPOV. The prefix "pseudo-"
means false. That puts any person defending a practice that has been
put under that rubric in the untenable position of supporting a
self-contradictory characterization. When you get to that, the
factuality of the practice is irrelevant. The dogma of falsifiability
in discussions about scientific method almost appears designed to
maximize confusion.
Scientific method is asymptotic to truth, and I would also extend that
assertion to NPOV. That a particular view is held by a significant
majority (either of the general public or of experts) does not magically
convert that opinion into fact. Scientific method very fairly allows
for the possibility that eccentric views may ultimately be found valid;
nevertheless, these allowances only represent distant hopes. Poker
players are not dealt royal flushes very frequently.
Eclecticology