This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think NPOV should be scaled down as much as possible. I think there may be more to neutral articles than neutral point of view. For example perhaps Positive tone should be equally if not more important. I think that having the only official policy on Wikipedia relate to point of views may give opinions precedence over facts. Bensaccount 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It is stated. Right at the top it states that "apple" has multiple meanings, and neutrally, this page concerns meaning X. For other meanings see page Y.
If it still bothers you that the selection of which page is "the" apple page isn't neutral, do a page move from "apple" to "apple (fruit), edit "apple" to redirect to "apple (disambiguation)" and it's solved.
And no, the apple (fruit) intro shouldn't be told from any given POV. Thats clear NPOV policy in action. According to these views this, and according to those other views that. FT2 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Daft argument. WP:NPOV says what you need to do to be neutral. It doesn't say how the neutral matter should be worded, just that when you do, these are things it should implement. A disambiguation page is one implementation of a way to do NPOV in a subject with multiple meanings. There are others. FT2 23:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I was reading [1] and I came across another complaint that I think is similar to mine: "Is Wikipedia about representing knowledge, as an encyclopaedia should be? If so, this part of the proposed NPOV policy is dangerous to the long term academic integrity of the project. The current NPOV article makes Wikipedia's mission out not to be a summation of human knowledge, but rather only a much less worthwhile task - it will be merely a summation of human arguments. That is not a goal many scientists or historians will spend their time on. They will simply refuse to contribute. That, you can be sure, will not be the case for the millions of deluded and sometimes mean-spirited people who promote and push pseudo-science and pseudo-history. They will take advantage of this project. This may become more apparent as the project progresses."- RK. Bensaccount 03:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Again I ask: is this a problem in actual practice? Both Nuclear power and Apple present facts. I understand the theoretical objection being made about the NPOV policy, but I also ask that attention be paid to the question of whether or not Wikipedia is actually suffering from the ailments that NPOV policy is accused of causing. — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Saying NLP is a "model" is meaningless. It is a model of what? From reading the intro one may get the impression that NLP is a model of "the relationship between mind and language". But you notice it doesn't actually say what it is a model of. It says that Richard Bandler and John Grinder propose that it models the relationship between mind and language. This is because whether it is or not is unknown. It seems that the only thing actually known about this subject is that it is a collection of self-help recommendations, promoted through the popular psychology and self development sections of bookshops, and advertised in various media including the Internet and infomercials. This sentence was pushed out of the intro (probably to keep it NPOV). It is also attributed as 'the widest opinion on the subject'. I think it is likely that someone disputed this fact, evoking NPOV, and therefore it had to be pushed out of the intro and attributed. To me it seems this is an example of NPOV giving precedence to opinions over facts. Of course, if you want to debate that NLP is what I said it is, my demonstration has no effect. Anyways, I dont think NPOV must be torn from the heart of Wikipedia to fix this problem. I think that adding a rule like Wikipedia:FPO (and giving it as much authority as NPOV) should be sufficient. In this case if it can be agreed that the statement "NLP is a model of the relationship between mind and language" is an opinion, while "collection of self-help recommendations, promoted through the popular psychology and self development sections of bookshops, and advertised in various media including the Internet and infomercials" is a fact, the latter should be given precedence. If it can not be agreed, any factual statement about NLP that can be agreed upon should be given precedence over the opinions that the intro currently consists of. Bensaccount 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Yet frequently Wikipedia articles over emphasize pro/con viewpoints on a subject, RATHER THAN THE SUBJECT ITSELF. This is apparently encouraged by common interpretation of the current NPOV policy. The NPOV article says "write about what people believe, rather than what is so". That is the opposite of what is needed. The priority should be sticking to the facts and writing about what is so -- the topic, NOT about people's beliefs and feelings on that topic. The main purpose of an encyclopedia is to convery information about the stated topic, NOT to be a Crossfire-style forum for debate in the name of NPOV.
It's true the certainty of "what is so" varies from topic to topic. But the pro/con thing is out of hand. Take the nuclear power example -- the main purpose of that article should be to cover and educate about the stated topic -- nuclear power. Including some information about the debate is OK. That's what Encarta does, in an appropriate manner. But in the Wikipedia article, the debate drowns out the factual material.
At least in the evolution article, there's a link to a separate Creation-evolution controversy article. With many articles there is no link, so the pro/con debate clutters up the main article.
On other controversial topics, I often see complaints about "that sounds like a press release, you should include pros/cons on how people feel on that". That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia!! You may like or dislike like nuclear power or evolution or missile defense. But the main priority is cover the description of the topic, not get bogged down in the pros/cons of how people feel about that topic.
That may not be what the NPOV article intended. But it's worded in a way that encourages diluting factual information with pro/con positions in the name of objectivity. For example: "present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree". This is often interpreted and implemented as giving equal space to advocates of each position, within the body of the article. Yet neither side should have much space -- the article should prioritize covering the topic alone. Joema 00:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The main intent of NPOV is: "encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view". That is good.
Unfortunately other elements of NPOV encourage emphasizing pro/con viewpoints (whether in list form or not), and how people feel about the topic, rather than just the facts. Examples:
"Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating."
"Does the article fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each?"
The main priority of an encyclopedia is not to present all significant viewpoints, but to be a factual reference about the topic. Admittedly this will vary with subject material. If the topic is about controversy (e.g, Creation-evolution controversy), then of course you present various viewpoints. Wikipedia handled this well for abortion. That article largely sticks to descriptive information, with a link to abortion debate.
However in general the article should heavily prioritize sticking to the descriptive facts on the topic, not how people feel about that. That's how other encyclopedias handle it.
There's no simple one-size-fits-all answer. Articles sometimes require inclusions of pro/con viewpoints, because of the subject matter. But there's a risk of readers coming away from a Wikipedia article knowing more about popular controversies surrounding the topic than about the topic itself. NPOV as currently worded and often interpreted encourages this. Joema 18:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm in the processing of cleaning up stale NPOV disputes. I'd like to change the templates to be similar to the cleanup-date templates so we can mark POV disputes by time initiated to better detect when this stuff started. Objections? -- Jbamb 16:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I think my new section in 2005_Sony_CD_copy_protection_controversy breaks this policy, does it?
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think NPOV should be scaled down as much as possible. I think there may be more to neutral articles than neutral point of view. For example perhaps Positive tone should be equally if not more important. I think that having the only official policy on Wikipedia relate to point of views may give opinions precedence over facts. Bensaccount 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It is stated. Right at the top it states that "apple" has multiple meanings, and neutrally, this page concerns meaning X. For other meanings see page Y.
If it still bothers you that the selection of which page is "the" apple page isn't neutral, do a page move from "apple" to "apple (fruit), edit "apple" to redirect to "apple (disambiguation)" and it's solved.
And no, the apple (fruit) intro shouldn't be told from any given POV. Thats clear NPOV policy in action. According to these views this, and according to those other views that. FT2 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Daft argument. WP:NPOV says what you need to do to be neutral. It doesn't say how the neutral matter should be worded, just that when you do, these are things it should implement. A disambiguation page is one implementation of a way to do NPOV in a subject with multiple meanings. There are others. FT2 23:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I was reading [1] and I came across another complaint that I think is similar to mine: "Is Wikipedia about representing knowledge, as an encyclopaedia should be? If so, this part of the proposed NPOV policy is dangerous to the long term academic integrity of the project. The current NPOV article makes Wikipedia's mission out not to be a summation of human knowledge, but rather only a much less worthwhile task - it will be merely a summation of human arguments. That is not a goal many scientists or historians will spend their time on. They will simply refuse to contribute. That, you can be sure, will not be the case for the millions of deluded and sometimes mean-spirited people who promote and push pseudo-science and pseudo-history. They will take advantage of this project. This may become more apparent as the project progresses."- RK. Bensaccount 03:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Again I ask: is this a problem in actual practice? Both Nuclear power and Apple present facts. I understand the theoretical objection being made about the NPOV policy, but I also ask that attention be paid to the question of whether or not Wikipedia is actually suffering from the ailments that NPOV policy is accused of causing. — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Saying NLP is a "model" is meaningless. It is a model of what? From reading the intro one may get the impression that NLP is a model of "the relationship between mind and language". But you notice it doesn't actually say what it is a model of. It says that Richard Bandler and John Grinder propose that it models the relationship between mind and language. This is because whether it is or not is unknown. It seems that the only thing actually known about this subject is that it is a collection of self-help recommendations, promoted through the popular psychology and self development sections of bookshops, and advertised in various media including the Internet and infomercials. This sentence was pushed out of the intro (probably to keep it NPOV). It is also attributed as 'the widest opinion on the subject'. I think it is likely that someone disputed this fact, evoking NPOV, and therefore it had to be pushed out of the intro and attributed. To me it seems this is an example of NPOV giving precedence to opinions over facts. Of course, if you want to debate that NLP is what I said it is, my demonstration has no effect. Anyways, I dont think NPOV must be torn from the heart of Wikipedia to fix this problem. I think that adding a rule like Wikipedia:FPO (and giving it as much authority as NPOV) should be sufficient. In this case if it can be agreed that the statement "NLP is a model of the relationship between mind and language" is an opinion, while "collection of self-help recommendations, promoted through the popular psychology and self development sections of bookshops, and advertised in various media including the Internet and infomercials" is a fact, the latter should be given precedence. If it can not be agreed, any factual statement about NLP that can be agreed upon should be given precedence over the opinions that the intro currently consists of. Bensaccount 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Yet frequently Wikipedia articles over emphasize pro/con viewpoints on a subject, RATHER THAN THE SUBJECT ITSELF. This is apparently encouraged by common interpretation of the current NPOV policy. The NPOV article says "write about what people believe, rather than what is so". That is the opposite of what is needed. The priority should be sticking to the facts and writing about what is so -- the topic, NOT about people's beliefs and feelings on that topic. The main purpose of an encyclopedia is to convery information about the stated topic, NOT to be a Crossfire-style forum for debate in the name of NPOV.
It's true the certainty of "what is so" varies from topic to topic. But the pro/con thing is out of hand. Take the nuclear power example -- the main purpose of that article should be to cover and educate about the stated topic -- nuclear power. Including some information about the debate is OK. That's what Encarta does, in an appropriate manner. But in the Wikipedia article, the debate drowns out the factual material.
At least in the evolution article, there's a link to a separate Creation-evolution controversy article. With many articles there is no link, so the pro/con debate clutters up the main article.
On other controversial topics, I often see complaints about "that sounds like a press release, you should include pros/cons on how people feel on that". That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia!! You may like or dislike like nuclear power or evolution or missile defense. But the main priority is cover the description of the topic, not get bogged down in the pros/cons of how people feel about that topic.
That may not be what the NPOV article intended. But it's worded in a way that encourages diluting factual information with pro/con positions in the name of objectivity. For example: "present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree". This is often interpreted and implemented as giving equal space to advocates of each position, within the body of the article. Yet neither side should have much space -- the article should prioritize covering the topic alone. Joema 00:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The main intent of NPOV is: "encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view". That is good.
Unfortunately other elements of NPOV encourage emphasizing pro/con viewpoints (whether in list form or not), and how people feel about the topic, rather than just the facts. Examples:
"Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating."
"Does the article fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each?"
The main priority of an encyclopedia is not to present all significant viewpoints, but to be a factual reference about the topic. Admittedly this will vary with subject material. If the topic is about controversy (e.g, Creation-evolution controversy), then of course you present various viewpoints. Wikipedia handled this well for abortion. That article largely sticks to descriptive information, with a link to abortion debate.
However in general the article should heavily prioritize sticking to the descriptive facts on the topic, not how people feel about that. That's how other encyclopedias handle it.
There's no simple one-size-fits-all answer. Articles sometimes require inclusions of pro/con viewpoints, because of the subject matter. But there's a risk of readers coming away from a Wikipedia article knowing more about popular controversies surrounding the topic than about the topic itself. NPOV as currently worded and often interpreted encourages this. Joema 18:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm in the processing of cleaning up stale NPOV disputes. I'd like to change the templates to be similar to the cleanup-date templates so we can mark POV disputes by time initiated to better detect when this stuff started. Objections? -- Jbamb 16:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I think my new section in 2005_Sony_CD_copy_protection_controversy breaks this policy, does it?