[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 57, Issue 47

[Jonas Rand]

I receive the WikiEN-l "digest" format so it doesn't clutter up my e-mail 
with ten messages. A drawback is that I have to edit out when I reply.

> From: WJhonson at aol.com
> In a message dated 4/13/2008 6:03:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> ian.woollard at gmail.com writes:
>
> 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 ;-)
>
>
> ----------------
> NPOV does not mandate that our sources themselves are neutral.
> What it states is that *we* write from a neutral frame, not that they must
> have.
>
> We, collectively, are not *an* author, nor a source.  We are Q, the
> collective mind, yet individuals.
> Our collaborative effort itself must express a neutral point-of-view,
> although each of us individually, and our sources, individually may have a
> non-neutral point-of-view.
>
> Neutrality arises as a function of the collective effort.  Or at least 
> that
> is the goal at which we aim.

If the second definition of neutrality (no point of view) is followed, Ian 
is right that we would have an empty encyclopedia, or a very naked one. 
Mostly everything is someone's point of view, and I believe since that is 
so, we should not try to hide points of view. That is all the nonexistent 
neutrality is: trying to hide points of view, because it is impossible to 
have an encyclopedia while not using points of view. We should admit our 
biases, keep it transparent, and not deny the existence of our opinions. 
Many of the things people call "facts" are actually the opinions of people, 
or their views of things. Keep in mind that is my opinion.

> From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>
>> 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.
>
> Marc

Encyclopedias base themselves off of the opinions of scientists and the 
authors of the article. Have you ever considered that "facts" and "truth" 
are just viewpoints of the world and things inside it that many agree on? 
Plus, we all have opinions. There is no point in hiding them like no one 
knows they're there. If you thought an encyclopedia could exist without 
opinions, consider it this way: take away all the opinions, observations, 
and viewpoints from the entire planet, and you have lies. Science is the 
observation of scientists, who have also formed opinions and shared them 
with other scientists.If you thought a collection of information 
(encyclopedia) could exist without opinions, wrong. Newsflash Marc: you have 
one too.

> From: "Ron Ritzman" <ritzman at gmail.com>
> On 4/13/08, Ian Woollard <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 ;-)
>
> If you read an article about Newton, you will read about "Newton's"
> point of view. You should not be able to determine the "author's"
> point of view.

Why not? If the author admits zir bias, then why should ze hide it? It is my 
_opinion_ that the world is composed of ~ 99.5% opinions and the rest fact, 
and that pure fact would not be much in an encyclopedia.