[WikiEN-l] Neutral point of view

[SlimVirgin]

On 4/14/08, Relata Refero <refero.relata at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:51 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > What we really mean by NPOV is a position that all educated holders of
>  > the dominant POVs within the English-speaking world can accept as
>  > valid and responsible. It's a wonderful achievement when an article
>  > manages to cater to those positions. But it is not neutrality.
>  >
>  > Sarah
>  >
>
> If anyone doubts both the exact accuracy and the necessity of this statement
>  (especially if one replaces "educated" with "informed"), consider the
>  battles over evolution and creationism. Genuine NPOV would mean that 40% of
>  the articles would talk about Genesis. Genuine NPOV would be a death-knell
>  for this project as a scholarly enterprise. But filtered through our
>  policies on reliability we can keep that fate at bay.
>
>  More generally, viewing each of our three original foundational policies
>  individually is a mistake, which is why the last three mega-threads have
>  been more heat than light. Understanding NPOV by itself is absurd, it needs
>  V; V left to itself sounds dangerous, it needs NOR. And so on.

That's right. They are so interdependent that in a very real sense
they comprise three parts of one policy.

Sarah