On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Phil Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/14/2008 6:33:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cbeckhorn@fastmail.fm writes:
I don't think there is much support in contempory critical theory for the idea that a writer can write without presenting a point of view, or that a reader can read without a point of view. >>
We are however, not "writers writing". We are "editors editing". Without this agreement, we won't have a place from which to argue. If you believe you are a writer, an author, a creator of new and interesting expression, then you don't belong on Wikipedia.
Will Johnson
There is not much support in contemporary critical theory for making that distinction either.
-Phil
There is not much support for contemporary critical theory. Sorry, really cheap shot.
More seriously, we are again arguing over semantics. It is generally accepted that no individual can have a neutral point of view. It is generally recognised when an individual is editing an article to skew the point of view that the article espouses. The idea of having NPOV as a core policy is that we want people's edits to be in line with making a fair attempt to not skew the article towards their own POV too much; that's all.
What actually makes the difference is a question of tone. It's shocking, sometimes, how long the most inappropriate and non-neutral arrangement of facts can last in some articles just because its been presented using a non-judgmental and non-shrill tone.
RR