![[Home]](wikipedia.png)
History of Wikipedia commentary/PV of a Science of Nature editor|
I think this POV has been discussed to death on creationism/talk? and that a strictly biased POV should not become wikipedia pollicy. I for one would consider forking the pedia, to create an effort which accommodates various POV, before I'd let this happen. |
|
I think this POV has been discussed to death on creationism/talk? and that a strictly biased POV should not become wikipedia pollicy. I for one would consider forking the pedia, to create an effort which accommodates various POV, before I'd let this happen. You might or might not know that the stated Wikipedia policy has been from the beginning the neutral point of view. I, and I imagine Jimbo as well as most participants in Wikipedia, are no more seriously considering changing this than we are changing the fact that this is an encyclopedia. This is one of the constraints on a successful international, collaborative encyclopedia. We cannot reasonably expect people to follow a policy that they don't understand, however, and this policy is really very easy to misunderstand. It does not imply any controversial positions about epistemology or metaphysics; it asks (to put it rather simply) that we do our very best to represent competing points of views fairly, and that we do not make the article espouse some "official Wikipedia view." We "go meta" whenever there is any significant dispute, and describe the dispute. Now, if you don't want to call what we ask "neutrality" or "nonbias," then call it "schmeutrality" or whatever you like. :SNPOV is biased towards political neutrality? and political correctness. This is just false and represents a simple misunderstanding of what the policy says. The only thing that the nonbias policy is biased in favor of is the idea that it is possible to state competing views fairly within the same article, within some very reasonable constraints on what is to be considered fair. If you want to get into a debate about the policy, it would be great if you would give a concise summary of the arguments that have been raised against the neutral point of view. I would be only too happy to reply to help develop a draft and to develop replies. I am firmly persuaded that very many objections to a nonbias policy stem from a failure to understand it properly. I'm looking for something similar to what was done on Wikipedia subpages pros and cons, although I think a better name might be summary of the debate about the neutral point of view. I guess I'll just start that page. --LMS |