Chad Perrin wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 07:44:45PM +0200, Wouter
Steenbeek wrote:
>>
>>
>It applied at least to what Steve said. He used the argument of cultural
>diversity (transferred on wikipedia in wikipedias in zeveral languages) to
>indicatethe inaccurateness of the NPOV-ideal. I wanted to oppose that.
>
>You are right in saying objectivity and NPOV are not the same. Neutrality
>originates form Latin "neuter" mening neither (ne-uter "none of
both"), so
>a Neutral Point of View simply means that there are at least two factions
>with both/ each a fair deal of followers and that the statements agree with
>neither/ none of them. So, I agree with you and I am convinced Wikipedia
>can achieve this.
>
>
OK, I think I understand. And, I don't think that our differences are
very far apart.
Currently, the NPOV model is to try to have competing ideas under the
same article title. My proposal is to have some kind of separation of
conflicting points of view. In my original proposal, I suggested
concurrent article titles, but it doesn't have to be that. Perhaps
different points can be presented side-by-side. My thought is that in an
NPOV, someone claiming to be neutral may not do the best job of
presenting any side's point of view. Why not let the proponents present
their case, and then make some kind of interface where the end-user can
compare the different points of view? Also, this proposal does not
prevent, in any way, a summary article that attempts to synthesize
different branches.
It's a question of where should we put differing points of view. If I'm
a proponent of the idea that space aliens run the government, I may feel
jilted by someone else's summary of my position. However, the original
author sees my work as crazy and extreme, so they go and 'fix' it. I
'fix' it back, and so on. What results is a wasteful revision process.
Instead, let people build up their sides of the story without destroying
other's work.