[WikiEN-l] Textbooks (was: Announcing Wikimedia Foundation)

[Vicki Rosenzweig]

At 07:06 PM 6/22/03 -0700, Anthere wrote:

>--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >Oh boy, that's gonna be hard to keep NPOV ;-) (no
>Mav)
> >
> > IMO it can't and shouldn't. The POV of whatever
> > textbook is being worked on
> > should be a "Discipline Point Of View." This means
> > that if a textbook is on
> > Biology then the POV of biologists should be in the
> > book. There will be
> > neutrality rules but they only apply from within
> > whatever discipline the
> > textbook is being written for. So for example a
> > chapter on evolution would
> > focus on the major differing views on the subject
> > that exist from within the
> > biological sciences but it would not seriously
> > consider the POV of groups
> > outside the biological sciences.
> >
> > The reason why our encyclopedias have to be NPOV is
> > because our audience is a
> > general one. The reason why our textbooks have to be
> > DPOV is because our
> > audience is very focused (the biology student, for
> > example) and we need to
> > bring that student through the material in a logical
> > and efficient way.
>
>No. Wrong. One do not have to throw away NPOV just for
>the reason the audience is more focused. That has
>nothing to do.



> > Same thing is true for a section of a medical
> > textbook on abortion ; we leave
> > out most of the history and the different political
> > views on the subject and
> > just talk about the procedure itself and maybe have
> > a single paragraph at the
> > end sating something about access to the procedure
> > and that risks doctors
> > face when they choose to specialize in this area.
>
>
>I disagree with you Mav.
>By thus doing, we will only propose technical books,
>cold and disincarnated. That is against what some
>people consider education is.
>
>There are some aspects, even of technical education,
>that require understanding of politics, that require
>ethical information. A book limiting itself to the
>pure technical gestures to apply is *bad*. Very bad.
>
>This is particularly true in the biological domain you
>cite. Teaching abortion just from the technical
>procedure is an error. If only because abortion is
>allowed in some places, not allowed in others, and
>this should be known.

It should be known and is known, but it's not a medical
matter. Similarly, which medicines are legally available
depends on the jurisdiction, but the medical effects,
benefits, and risks of diamorphine don't change when
you cross a national border.

>  Also because an abortion is a
>terrible act for most women to undergo, and *no*
>doctor should know it only from the tech point of
>view.

It is "terrible" for some women--not most--and in large
part because they have been told that it's wrong, and
been taught to expect it to be traumatic.

>He should be aware of the psychological impact
>of such a gesture, if he wants to propose and to
>proceed with such an act with the physical and
>psychological consent of the mother-to-be. Also
>because he should be aware of all the limits to such
>an act from a religious point of view.

Which religious point of view? Will you cover the
religious point of view that mandates abortion under
certain circumstances? Do you expect a medical
textbook to explain that the Catholic church once
taught that abortion is morally acceptable in early
pregnancy, and that the point at which it stopped
being acceptable depended on the gender of the
fetus?

Those aren't medical issues. They're historical,
theological, and/or philosophical ones.
-- 
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org