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

[Steve Bennett]

On 8/9/06, Dabljuh <dabljuh at gmx.net> wrote:
> Since your statement appears to imply that you want
> constructive suggestions, here's one.
>
> Give WP:NPOV a "facts override" clause. That is,
> if something is a simple and verifiable fact, npov is
> not meant to relativate it when a majority of people
> are misinformed or simply don't like the information.

Sounds dangerous. But can you explain it in a bit more detail? My
concern is that most of the time when people think that NPOV already
works that way, it's because they want to objectively define truth at
Wikipedia or something. Leading to "X said XX. Y said YY. But actually
they're both wrong, the TRUTH is Z!"

I think we could go so far as to give more weight to scientific
opinions, but "facts override" just sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Steve