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

[Phil Sandifer]

NPOV is the radical notion that people can draw conclusions from  
information.

NPOV is the idea that one can and should separate presentations of  
fact from interpretations of them.

NPOV is the belief that the most horrible thing we can do to our  
crazy contributors is accurately describe their viewpoints.

NPOV is the belief that for any viewpoint, reasonable or crazy, the  
fairest thing to do with it is describe it accurately.

Best,
Phil Sandifer
sandifer at english.ufl.edu

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a  
boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

 >


On Aug 7, 2006, at 8:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> The press concentrate on the wiki method and editability as the most
> amazing thing about Wikipedia.
>
> But I think NPOV is possibly a more important innovation. Other
> sources aim to explain the view they hold or to be authoritative; NPOV
> describes the views and has whatever authority that confers.
>
> I'm sorely lacking in snappy quotes, though. I ask your assistance:
> Explain NPOV in a sentence.
>
> Two sentences if you have to. But we need something that's not only
> accurate and complete, but shows it's obviously the right thing once
> explained.
>
> This is what I said in an email interview a few months ago. Note it's
> horribly long-winded because I couldn't think of a short way to put
> it. Your suggestions are most welcomed.
>
> "One of the keys to Wikipedia's success in my mind is the Neutral  
> Point
> of View. I think this is actually our 'secret sauce.' Rather than
> advocate something or hold it to be the Truth (capital T), it tries to
> describe views of the truth per their relevance. This is an editorial
> judgement call, and perfect neutrality is of course an unachievable
> goal, but I do think it provides a good editorial compass for us. And
> neutral-point-of-view writing on subjects seems to be drastically
> rare. That's something Wikipedia does that no-one else in fact has as
> a key goal. One of my specialist subjects is Scientology (I am
> apparently what passes for an expert critic) and there's nearly no
> neutral writing on the subject outside Wikipedia - critical sites are
> detailed but really impassioned, Church sites are low-key but miss
> lots of stuff the critics consider important; the coverage in
> Wikipedia, by writing neutrally with high-quality and verifiable
> references, is often very good. It's far from perfect, but it's an
> interesting thing we do, other than the wiki work method, that is
> actually *new*. NPOV is basically how 20,000 active editors with
> wildly divergent views can keep from being at each others' throats.
> (Most of the time ;-)"
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l