[Wikipedia-l] pitching an idea
perrin at apotheon.com
Sun Apr 17 17:08:40 UTC 2005
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 12:36:45PM -0400, Steve Lefevre wrote:
> Furthermore, I don't buy any claims to NPOV. Language is inherently
> biased. One bias is what gets mentioned. Wikipedia is more comprehensive
> than other encyclopedias in another realm, but Another bias is what
> gets mentioned first. Wikipedia articles are currently serial, so there
> is always an order to the mentioning of any topic. There are also biases
> in the wording and terminology of 'controversial' figures and unpopular
> viewpoints. Who arbitrates who is controversial, or what is unpopular?
> In the sign-off system I propose, we actually have hard numbers as to
> what is controversial and unpopular.
I disagree with that characterization of NPOV as a goal. Rather than
say that it's some kind of myth to which we pretend to subscribe here,
I'm of the opinion that it's more an asymptote rather than a point on a
graph, and we are (in general) "approaching NPOV" incrementally with our
efforts. The fact that we may never reach an absolute value of NPOV
idoesn't make it any less real, though.
[ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
More information about the Wikipedia-l