[WikiEN-l] Neutral point of view

[Delirium]

Marc Riddell wrote:
>   
>> On 14/04/2008, WJhonson at aol.com <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> "Neutral point-of-view" is not a point-of-view, it is the absence of any
>>> point-of-view.
>>>       
>
> on 4/13/08 9:02 PM, Ian Woollard at ian.woollard at gmail.com wrote:
>   
>> No, that's a common misconception; and if it was true, that would
>> rapidly create an empty wikipedia, *everything* written, *ever*, is
>> somebody's point of view. For example, Newton's Principia was Newton's
>> point of view, but we don't remove that from the wiki ;-)
>>
>>     
> Ian, we're writing an encyclopedia. We're reporting on facts. Something
> either happened or it didn't. Newton's Principia may have been his point of
> view, but stating it in an encyclopedia is not.
>   
Even if we grant this, there is plenty of subjectivity in Wikipedia: How 
exactly to arrange the facts, which to report where, how not to give 
"undue weight" to things that are minor points of view, how to determine 
what is consensus in a field, how to determine what constitutes a field, 
how to judge the reliability of sources, how exactly to summarize or 
paraphrase an existing argument or claim, and so on. This doesn't even 
begin to touch on the problematic definition of "fact" to begin with, 
which epistemology of the past at least 150 years or so has had a good 
time wrestling with. The old Nietzschean aphorism, "there are no facts, 
only interpretations", is still rather influential with many of the 
modern-day authors who write on these sorts of matters.

-Mark