[Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view

[とある白い猫]

For data oriented projects such as Wikidata, Wikisource, Commons I think
NPOV still applies as we shouldn't censor data just because our POV has
issues with it.

Consider this in the context of

   - Mohammed image controversy for Commons (how they aren't deleted)
   - Bible versions for Wikisource (how we don't only present the correct
   version)
   - (Although a new project) Interwiki links for Wikidata (how we don't
   exclude languages)

Of course not being censored is not the same thing as being neutral but if
censored, neutrality is further away.

  -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)


On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia at frontier.com>wrote:

> On 9/16/2013 7:33 PM, Risker wrote:
>
>> I am not certain that neutral point of view applies to all Wikimedia
>> projects.  Wikiversity programs may deliberately examine one aspect of a
>> subject while ignoring others, for example. It is difficult to apply the
>> concept of  "neutrality" to images and other media, some of which is
>> explicitly non-neutral (see the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed images).  I am
>> not
>> sure that "neutral point of view" applies to Wiktionary at all.
>>
> Once the topic unit is selected (an article title in Wikipedia, a word in
> Wiktionary, or a destination in Wikivoyage, for example), I think a concept
> of neutrality within that topic is not actually that difficult. Whether we
> require it everywhere is a policy choice, but it is certainly possible.
> Maintaining the design of a Wikiversity program need not be different in
> kind from avoiding off-topic digressions in a Wikipedia article.
>
> Obviously it makes sense to adapt our understanding of neutrality to the
> mission of each project. I believe our projects have generally tried
> conscientiously to maintain that spirit in a way that suits their context.
> But although it may superficially appear non-neutral to enforce criteria
> and boundaries for topic units, I think the answer to that lies in the
> ambition to universality of our projects. If by simply defining a topic we
> deviate from neutrality, the way to restore it is by covering all topics.
>
> When dealing with source material, as with Wikimedia Commons or
> Wikisource, then "neutrality" may be a concept one step removed from the
> mission of the project. Faithful reproduction may be closer to what we are
> really looking for. However, neutrality is still a value worth considering
> in terms of the overall collection of source material, and certainly in how
> that material gets presented and contextualized in our other projects.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org>
> ?subject=**unsubscribe>
>