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

[maru dubshinki]

On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "NPOV is fairly describing things or beliefs without succumbing to them."
> >
> > Oh, I do like that one. How about "without advocating them"?
>
> I think "succumbing" has the extra meaning that often one "succumbs"
> to a belief by attempting to debunk it. This was common at [[Safe
> Speed]] for instance - although most of the group's claims were
> clearly baloney, some of our editors were getting sucked into
> attempting to disprove them, falling afoul of NPOV. I'm not sure how
> to put that succinctly though - "without taking a side"? "without
> trying to prove or disprove them"? "without regard to their inherent
> worth"?
>
> Steve

I was going for a sort of protean conception there- we all have
different ideas of what "succumbing" to a POV might be; perhaps it is
simply avoiding it and not speaking of it, or mentioning things one
should not, etc. But it always contains a sense that you are treating
this subject different than other subjects. Its opposite, not
succumbing, carries connotations of objective trustworthiness:  if one
has not succumbed, then one can be trusted to give an informative and
inherently fair account of matters (to the best of one's ability).

Besides, it isn't a commonly used word and makes it wonderfully succint.

~maru