[WikiEN-l] Challenge: explain NPOV in a sentence.

[David Gerard]

On 07/08/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> It doesn't even mention the critical bit, that all relevant views are
> supposed to be there. According to that summary, [[GWB]] could simply
> contain GWB bashing with no rebuttal, as "fairly" representing the
> views of Democrats...


I like the fact that when you combine NPOV and third-party
verifiability, you get that critical views are relevant only insofar
as they too can be documented. e.g. [[Michael Moore]] needs a critical
section; an article on a minorly notable scientist probably won't.


- d.