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

[The Cunctator]

Frankly, I think the problem with describing NPOV is that the
consensus formulation is a bit wrongheaded; there are some inherent
contraditions in it. In short, the problem is talking about NPOV as
anything other than an ideal goal.

In other words, saying that X is NPOV and Y isn't doesn't really make
sense. You can say that X approaches the neutral point of view better
than Y.

Once we recognize that NPOV is an ideal that we are asymptotically
approaching, discussing it becomes a lot easier.

That means there's not "a NPOV", there's "the NPOV".

Wikipedia will never achieve the NPOV until it encompasses all
knowledge (because selective bias is a form of bias). Any one article
can't be truly written in the NPOV because again, its limitations, its
omissions keep it from completeness.

We see this in religious and philosophical thought with the
recognition that objectivity requires omniscience.

Even if Wikipedia ever encompasses all of human knowledge, it will
still be hopelessly anthropocentric.

So NPOV is a goal we are asymptotically attempting to achieve.


So my one sentence version of NPOV, which I wrote *years* ago:

NPOV means, as a policy, "Pick the more neutral version".

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NPOV_is_an_ideal


P.S. As George Orwell pointed out, acronyms are execrable. NPOV stands
for "neutral point of view", which is a noun phrase. Not an adjective,
adverb, or verb, as it's often used (most often as an adjective). So,
I would say that "neutrality" or "objectivity" are perfectly good
words that describe what NPOV gets at.