[Foundation-l] Projekt: OpenCritics (let's free subjective content, too!!)

[David Goodman]

Myself, I consider NPOV as what distinguishes an encyclopedia from
promotion and advocacy. Agreed it is hard to get there completely, but
the effort to approximate it is what makes Wikipedia a work of
reference, and conservopedia a joke.   ~~~~

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Anthony<wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wikinews does not adhere to the strict NPOV interpretation that is
>> inevitable for Wikipedia. Wikiversity could not even come close
>> to employing anything remotely like it. Wikispecies actually
>> doesn't have any need for anything like it. And for Wikisource,
>> just as for Wikinews, NPOV can only be considered to apply in
>> a thoroughly transmogrified form.
>
>
> Knowing very little about Wikiversity and Wikispecies, I'd be interested in
> how that can work.  I mean, for the general public to collaborate on a wiki,
> you have to have some form of rule about objectivity, don't you?
>
> I understand that NPOV has a meaning within the English Wikipedia which
> doesn't apply in most of the other projects, but there is an essence of it
> that applies to all the projects, isn't there?
>
> Maybe I'm wrong.  I'm really interested in your answer if I am.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>