[Textbook-l] Problem with NPOV

[Andrew Whitworth]

A problem with wikibooks at the moment is that we don't have any formal 
statement of the wikibooks "mission statement" anywhere, and we also don't 
have any formal accepted definition of what precisely a "textbook" is, how 
one is identified, etc. If we want to measure textbooks against the standard 
that they must be used in an "accredited institution", that begs the 
question what we mean by "accredited". Accredited by whom, precisely? There 
are plenty of educational institutions that are "accredited" by all sorts of 
bogus agencies, and there are plenty of educational institutions that are 
not "accredited", but which do teach valuable, meaningful courses and 
lessons to students.

Consider for instance an "accredited institution" that teaches phrenology, 
astrology, etc. Such an institution would certainly be accredited by groups 
that advocate such topics, but neither the educational institution, nor the 
accrediting agency would be listed as "respected". Consider now the 
existance of community organizations that teach informal classes to children 
and the elderly. These organizations would certainly not be "accredited", 
but they can certainly teach valuable lessons to the respective students.

Jimbo: If you want us to use a specific defintion of "textbook" and 
"accredited institution", then you are going to have to mandate such 
definitions to us. At the moment we are picking our way through such 
matters, with varying degrees of success.

-- Andrew Whitworth "Whiteknight"

>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
>Reply-To: Wikimedia textbook discussion <textbook-l at wikimedia.org>
>To: Wikimedia textbook discussion <textbook-l at wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Problem with NPOV
>Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 07:51:43 -0400
>
>Piotr "Derbeth" Kubowicz wrote:
> > What do you think of
> > http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Christianity/Living_as_a_Christian and
> > 
>http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Imamat_or_Successorship_After_the_Last_Prophet_of_God#Successorship?
> >
> >
> > I noticed there are more and more users who contribute to books that
> > are made with strongly islamic point of view (we already have some
> > texts about islam: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Islam), with
> > nicks like "Truebeliever", "Believer" etc. I'm afraid that we might
> > attract some zealots who see us as a good place to develop
> > propaganda. Generally, I think that we should think how we should
> > treat books about religious topics.
>
>1. NPOV is crucial.  Textbooks are not advocacy.  They are to instruct
>and inform, not brainwash and convert (in either direction!).
>
>2. Wikibooks is for _textbooks_, not any random sort of nonfiction book.
>   One of the tests we should use is: "Does this book serve the specific
>textbok needs of any actual class offered at any actual accredited
>institution?"  That will be a good way to cut out a lot of nonsense at
>the start.
>
>--Jimbo
>_______________________________________________
>Textbook-l mailing list
>Textbook-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l