Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 26

← Archive 025 |

Archive 26

| Archive 27 →

Dispute - Verifiability or NPOV?

There is a dispute regarding the Criticism section of an article on a top online game. The dispute has nearly led to edit wars on more than one occasion, and has severely disrupted my attempts to improve the article to GA status.

I am posting here for advice, as the dispute concerns two of Wikipedia's core policies: verifiability and NPOV. This dispute also highlights a problem caused by the Verifiability policy, which I have tried to point out several times, namely, systematic bias.

To summarize the locus of the dispute, when I first tried to improve the article to GA status, the Criticism section documented common player criticisms of the game. However, due to criticisms over lack of referencing, someone removed all the player criticisms and the section became a list of press reviews of the game (all of which praised the game).

Soon after the section was overwritten, the article's talk page was flooded with complaints about the new Criticism section, describing it as highly biased, reading like an advertisement, and blatantly violating the NPOV policy. Two comments I remember are "Previously, only the Criticism section documented any negative opinion of the game" and "The press reviews are totally different from what players think of the game".

On the talk page, there was an argument over the Criticism section, with both the new and old Criticism sections having their supporters, and an edit war nearly broke out. I commented "You'll never find those player criticisms in a reliable source" and suggested the Criticism section contain both player criticisms and press reviews to satisfy both verifiability and NPOV. We had a discussion on the talk page, and decided to restore the player criticisms, but referencing a player review from GameFAQs (which documented several of the player criticisms), and rewriting them in paragraph form, instead of a list.

Recently, when the article was put up for peer review, there were several complaints about the Criticism section. Exasperated, I lashed out at them.

"Make up your mind whether you want:

• A Criticism section containing press reviews, thus being reliable, but thus being highly biased and reading like an advertisement, and blatantly violating NPOV, or
• A Criticism section documenting player criticisms, thus being NPOV, but inherently less reliable."

We now have to choose between verifiability and NPOV. As stated earlier, I suggested a middle ground: have the Criticism section contain both press reviews and player criticisms.

However, I need your advice; please provide it. Thanks.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tough question. I think this is something of an indicator that the material covered is not, in a classical sense, encyclopedic. On the other hand, modern media coverage is definitely one of Wikipedia's strengths, and it is inherent in the material that there will be little real critical discussion in scholary sources at least for some time, and often forever. But the player criticism has to come from somewhere, of course (Usenet or online forums, I would suspect). Can you reference those primary sources? --Stephan Schulz 08:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there no secondary sources that review and summarize player reviews? If no moderately authoritative source can be found, then information on player reviews has no business being in the article; the section would be original research pure and simple. The reviews themselves may be verifiable, but any original summary of them (not based on other third-party summaries) would violate Wikipedia policy. I respect your efforts to find a middle ground, Hildanknight, but users who do not respect WP:NOR need to find another project to contribute to. -- Visviva 07:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why summarizing primary sources has to be more problematic than summarizing secondary sources here. In both cases one can introduce selection bias or miunderstandings. For deep academic subjects that need a lot of context this is different, as primary sources may be hard to interprete by laymen. But for videogame reviews? If WP:OR forbids summarizing as "original", then we can just as well stop writing Wikipedia...--Stephan Schulz 08:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think GameFaq and other commercial websites which have thier fingers in the money pie about video gaming produce pretty good summerizations and, probably, we don't really need to do an WP:OR to find pretty good summerizations which we feel are appropriate to an article. Previously published by a reliable source, WP:V. Terryeo 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that gaming magazines or websites are reliable sources in this context. Most of them are buttered up by the industry, and the seperation of editorial content and advertising department is somewhere between weak and non-existent. That's why I expressed my doubts about the subjects suitability for a traditional encyclopedia in principle. But if we want to cover these (and I'm far from opposing this, Wikipedia is usually doing a rather good job!), we need to find a suitable interpretation of our policies for short-lived topic that are not typically subject to serious scholarship and neutral third-party analysis. --Stephan Schulz 21:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a proposed addition to Wikipedia:Attribution that would allow some exceptions for cases like this; it would still prohibit citing anonymous posts, but would allow the citation of posts by people (perhaps professional gamers or well-known commentators) whose expertise in the field is well-established. It's under discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/popculture. Perhaps that would help to resolve this issue? -- Visviva 05:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am personally of the opinion that if correcting an NPOV violation would require creating a WP:V or WP:NOR violation, then there has been no NPOV-violation to begin with. Honestly, I'd like to see a sentence in the NPOV policy explicitly stating, "Points of view that are backed only by original research or statements and sources that cannot be verified must be excluded from Wikipedia." I don't think the current wording of the undue weight section is strong enough that with unverified or original-research points of view, any weight is undue weight. Don't know how much that helps this particular situation, but I think it's good as a principle for the interplay of NPOV with V and NOR. The Literate Engineer 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Literate Engineer is certainly right. The problem I have run into is that it does no good to address the issue or the editor by saying, "that's POV-pushing". Instead, quoting something like, previously published reliable sources has proven to be more productive. So, if NPOV were written with a little more force in that area, I am agreeing with Literate Engineer and think it would be helpful. Terryeo 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, how do we handle fields like video games that have no really reliable (secondary) sources? --Stephan Schulz 18:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know. May be that some sub-standards for sources need to be developed the way the notability stub-standards of WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, etc. were. I mean, I will always take peer-reviewed scientific journals as the most legitimate source for verifiable information, but those don't exist for video games, or webcomics, or assorted other topics. So, it might be that specialist fields need a specialist revamping of what constitutes a reliable source. Or maybe not. Like I said, I don't know, and I don't really have much to help this particular situation. The Literate Engineer 16:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Undue Weight" & Notability

Hi.

It seems (I could be wrong) that according to the assertion on the "undue weight" segment that "tiny minority" views should perhaps "not be represented at all". This seems to suggest that articles devoted to those views are intrinsically biased. While I fail to understand why, the assertion does seem to say that the views that should be included are those that are notable, and thus I think we could add more support to the case for notability becoming official policy here on Wikipedia. 70.101.144.160 20:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

An article on some minority idea is not inherently biased, but if it is a legitimate view it belongs integrated into the main article on the subject (modulo space considerations) and, as with everything, there must be good sources on it and it must be presented neutrally. —Centrx→talk • 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. 70.101.144.160 06:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

144.160: The International Flat Earth Society is an organization dedicated to an extreme minority view on the topic of world geography. It warrants an article because the organization is notable in press accounts. The views of that organization do not belong in an ordinary article about world geography, because those views are verifiable as patently false. It's all about context and balance. --Loqi T. 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So then how do we define "significant" views on a topic, and how, if at all, does this relate to notability? I'm asking because on the notability page, "significance" is suggested to be essentially the same as "notable". 65.73.219.85 03:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If those books are major in the field and actually discussed the Flat Earth Society, then it could be independently notable; Gardner and Randi are, I think, fairly major. Looking at the page history, it is also clearly something people look for and are interested in, not some obscure group, however novel it may be. —Centrx→talk • 04:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That is, it is not vanity, and it appears to be a viable article with legitimate sources. Note that if it were to be merged somewhere, it would be merged to some general article related to pseudoscience or joke/hoax groups, not an article on the planet or geography. —Centrx→talk • 04:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

But what makes a book "major" in the field? That X amount of 3rd parties commented in writing on it? Also, is there a notability criterion that views must satisfy to be included together on the same page, which would not just mean they are notable enough to have an article, but notable enough to be considered "significant" views that can be placed together on the same page about a topic? 65.73.219.85 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

However, what are we to make of this?: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia". Doesn't this seem to suggest that articles devoted to it would be intrinsically biased and therefore should not be here? Or does it seem to be suggesting that the number of people who believe something is the arbiter of inclusion, not amount of published material? Or does this fall to WP:N and other guidelines to interpret? 70.101.147.224 05:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

FAQ, "equal validity" and "pseudo science"

Hi.

I noticed this on the NPOV FAQ:

"Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."

However, what do we mean by "pseudoscience", anyway? Do we mean "pseudoscientific" topics, like UFOs, etc. in which case legitimate scientific methodology can be applied and the hypotheses that result from that would be actual science, or hypotheses that do not conform to scientific methodology yet claim to do so?

Furthermore, he thing suposedly called "pseudoscience" may not be that in actuality, and thus the arguments against it may NOT be "strong". This suggests that all allegedly "pseudoscientific" viewpoints are WRONG, even though Wikipedia cannot check that as a fact, and some allegedly "crank" theories have turned out to be right (not all, certainly, but some). In a truly neutral point-of-view article one can only provide the arguments and facts, it is up to the reader to decide for themselves what the "truth" is regarding a controversial theory. That is the purpose of neutral point-of-view, to let the reader decide for themselves what position to take, and not have Wikipedia force a view on them. 70.101.144.160 22:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If the arguments against a theory are not strong, then the mainstream opinion will eventually accept it, and Wikipedia can fairly report that this formerly-considered-pseudoscientific theory is now generally considered legit. On the other hand, if reliable sources in the relevant field regard a theory as pseudoscientific, or do not give it a place among legitimate theories, it is perfectly correct for Wikipedians to report that fact, and to structure our coverage of the theory accordingly. Your broader point is well taken, but note that NPOV acts in concert with WP:NOR; we cannot present "facts" directly, but only as they have been reported by reliable sources in the field. -- Visviva 04:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Eventually. This means that we still cannot tout it around as "accepted scientific fact" unless and until they actually do, regardless of the percieved strength of each side's arguments. But the wording is what I was after. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.34.192 (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

POV hidden in individual words.

Powerful institutions can have a huge effect on how we think, by framing concepts for us. As an example, consider the word "defense" as national governments prefer to use it. Talking about the United States Department of Defense is proper in my view, since that is the official name of that organization. By contrast, I think it's improper to use United States defense contractors as a preferred term, since the word 'defense' in this case carries an unnecessary value judgment. The fact that that terminology originates with public relations specialists should not give it extra legitimacy.

I'd say in such a case, we should favor the term 'military' over 'defense', as it is both more value-neutral, and more accurate. Every nation in the world would like us to think their military activities are all strictly defensive. And what does national defense really mean: fostering international goodwill? schooling children and sheltering homeless? building some bombs?

This is just one example of a POV word. Just because a powerful government would like us to carry their message, doesn't mean we need to play along.

Loqi T. 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone actually use the term military contractors irl? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• A Google search on "military contractors" and "defense contractors" shows about four times as many instances for 'defense' as for 'military'. The top hit on each list is the same organization: The Federation of American Scientists. It's not surprising that 'defense' occurs more than 'military', since that's the nomenclature of the various government agencies. I'd tend to favor a minority form if it better fits Wikipedia ideals. --Loqi T. 23:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia "ideals" are to represent things as they are, not as someone thinks they ought to be. That is the neutral point of view. The term generally used in English is "defense contractors". There is critique of the term that should be (and probably is) cited in an appropriate article, but most articles should use the overwhelmingly-common term. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "defense contractor" is so common in the United States that it had never occurred to me that the term would have any connotation as described by editor Loqi T. That's just my personal view. As used in connection with the U.S. military, the term "defense" has been used denotatively for so long (since 1947, when the Department of Defense was created) to refer to the military establishment that I would argue that most Americans probably see and hear the term denotatively, and not in the connotative sense described above. I agree with editor Robert A West; Wikipedia articles should use the common term in this case. Yours, Famspear 22:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content other than articles

What is meant by this distinction in the nutshell? Am I overlooking something obvious? Robert A.West (Talk) 05:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Templates and image descriptions, for example. —Centrx→talk • 05:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks! Robert A.West (Talk) 05:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

An example occurs here, the very first paragraph of the article. Similar catagories (other religions) have no "introduction" on their catagory page. One editor is insisting on an introduction (which would be hard to reference in that article) while several other editors have thought to remove the introduction. Thus we can have a brief paragraph and argue which POV it should include or forstalling the situation to subject articles where the POVs can be documented. Terryeo 07:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation

"Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?"
I'm sorry, but the punctuation in that just seems wrong to me. Shouldn't it be either:
"Disrespecting my religion, or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?"
Or:
"Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?"
Is it wrong, or am I just tired? ^{Well Drawn} Charlie 00:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The current one's now wrong, as the comma after "kind" has become inappropriate. Didn't used to be that way, though. Take a gander at the United States Bill of Rights. I'll go nix the comma now. The Literate Engineer 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tricky NPOV issue

Page Pedra Branca, Singapore has been proposed to move to another page to solve a few problem. However, such move is likely to be controversial because the ownership of the island is disputed between Malaysia and Singapore. Previously, page Pedra Branca, Singapore was Pedra Branca but somebody unilaterally moved it to its current page. Currently its seem only editors from Malaysia and Singapore are involved in the talk page. I feel a third neutral party would give more objective view on the matter. Please offer your neutral opinion at Talk:Pedra Branca, Singapore. __earth ^(Talk) 13:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words in policy description tag?

I came across this page while reading a warning on an article about economics that said "The neutrality of this article may have been compromised by the use of weasel-words". After reading about weasel-words I decided to follow the link about neutrality. But to my surprise, at the very beginning of this article about neutrality there is this sentence: It has "wide acceptance" among editors and "is considered" a standard that all users should follow. I may not have been bothered that much by the weasel-words "wide acceptance" a few days ago,but now since I just read the article about them I cannot stop short of asking "how wide is in fact wide acceptance".The other one "is considered" bothers me as well because I ask myself "is considered" by whom?By the deciding factors at wikipedia?Who are they?What is their area of expertise?What about their own neutrality with regard to the definition of neutrality? So I would encourage the authors of this sentence to be specific, for example by replacing "wide acceptance" with "the majority of editors" and it would help to state how was it possible to determine that the "majority of editors" expressed that opinion, perhaps by searching the keyword neutrality in connection with the editor's expressed approval of this policy to implement this definition of neutrality etc. If the sentence stays the way it is now, it seems odd to me that the people who successfully convinced me that weasel-words are to be reagarded with skepticism make use of weasel-words just in an article about neutrality.Dan 18 November 2006 (89.33.140.23 (talk · contribs))

An excellent question. What you are referring to is the policy tag, correct? That could use a bit of improvement. Try going to Template talk:policy if you want to propose an alternative wording, because I'm positive it's protected from non-admin edits.

Actually though, this particular policy is not derived from the consensus of a wide body of editors (though it does have consensus), it's a project mandate and is pretty much the policy equivalent of an axiom. I wouldn't mind some sort of {{corepolicy}} that explained this more clearly. --tjstrf talk 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always found the weasel word template highly annoying. Why should this be the first thing every reader has to read? Can't we just use individual tags, like {{reference needed}}? Also, what's this "corepolicy" thing? It's a redlink now. — Sebastian (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Should NPOV policy also apply to the use of external links?

The reason for my question is the article Beneš decrees.

And more specifically this link: * Ethnic cleansing in post World War II Czechoslovakia: the presidential decrees of Edward Benes, 1945-1948 Available as MS Word for Windows file.

It takes a strong stand against the Benez decrees. My question would be, does this link, which is very much to the point, but also seems not to comply with NPOV have to obey the NPOV policy and therefore be excluded from listing in the "external links" section of the article, or is it permissible to add possibly POV links in the "external links" section? --Stor stark7 ^Talk 15:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the specific context, but in general while NPOV certainly applies to the description of external links, the sites linked to need not themselves be neutral. Indeed often the value of an "external links" section is to provide examples of the various major points of view on a particular issue. But by that same token, the links for an article should not put undue weight on any one point of view; WP:EL touches on this point. -- Visviva 15:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Humdinger of a question

Here is the issue in a nutshell: After lurking (and occasionally making small edits) on an article over the past year, another editor decided to slap a NPOV tag onto an article even though the article was named an FA nine months ago and said editor made no challenge or even comment during the FAC process. Additionally, the article in question has had no substantial changes since it was named an FA and the few changes there have been have actually improved the article further. The claimed reason for the tagging was a perceived bias due to an opinion by the main article contributer (me) made at a different website over six years ago and nothing specifically pointed out in the FA itself. Am I wrong for immediately removing the tag without waiting for an imaginary consensus to form on a talk page that receives no more than one comment every 3 months? Here's the article in question. Thanks! --Jayzel 02:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you're fine. It's the duty of the tagger to explain what they mean by the tags if others have considered the article to be good (which it obviously has been if it's FA quality). Do keep in mind that adding tags is not technically blatant vandalism in most situations, so it still counts as edit warring if you repeatedly remove them. --tjstrf talk 08:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Luckily, an edit war didn't ensue upon my removing the tag! Regards, --Jayzel 20:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this policy forbid adding links to your own site/content?

There's some debate on WP:EL about whether disallowing links to your own site can be forbidden - whether it is a policy or a guideline. I've been looking for it in the policies, and I was surprised to not find it anywhere. Is linking to your own site a violation of NPOV? Is it forbidden in another policy that I missed? Shouldn't something like this be mentioned in this policy? Or is the guideline COI considered to be enough? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• WP:SPAM is a guideline, as is WP:COI. At minimum, linking to one's own site is considered bad form. If the link is one that someone else would unquestionably have made, then there is little to object to, but also little reason to do so -- someone else will add the link presently. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity doesn't exist??

Rubbish!! Text says:

• There's no such thing as objectivity

Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously?

OK, so since I adher to the conviction that objectivity exists, then I must therefore lack philosophical sophistication? THX 10⁶ yourself dear human fellow!!

My unsofisticated view is that, given a species with limitless population, a mutual conflict resolving language that is always efficient, and eyes and ears everywhere, then objectivity is the math limit of development for that species' mental model of the universe from here to infinite future (also called: doomsday). However impractical definition, it gives a clear direction of how to increase the degree of objectivity - use the Nobel Committee method: discuss and examine statements for flaws and misunderstandings. Strictly logically: if objectivity doesn't exist, then the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view is purely meaningless. Unstrictly fuzzy logically:' does 1+1=2 exist? No? Yet you regard it as a fact!? (Pinpointing the different abstraction levels in semantics, which regards "existence"). Rursus 11:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the basis of the wikipedia NPOV policy is flawed. What when popular opinion and reality contradict? What then is neutral? Reality? Or the delusions of people that are inherently biased and irrational? Reality isn't biased. Reality is just the way it is. And using scientific method we can understand the nature of reality.

It doesn't matter who does a scientific experiment or what that person things. The results will be objective.

--80.56.36.253 15:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole thread seems irrelevant, but understandable based on that comment about the non-existance of objectivity. I don't believe that the statement about objectivity not existing can be supported, but I believe it's a mis-statement that "Individuals have bias which affects their statements and beliefs, and it is extraordinarily difficult, approaching impossible, to fully eliminate personal bias from one's comments. Everyone with philosophical sophistication understands this, and attempts to, fallibly, develop this skill." It's not about actual objectivity, but about personal objectivity. Objective reality might exist, but we have, by definition, limited senses and limited scope in time and space, and therefore, we simply cannot be personally objective in the truest sense. The NPOV policy provides concrete approaches on how to adapt to this fact of human psychology in order to provide the most neutral, and non-biased articles possible under the circumstances. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK violation here

This policy has an example encouraging "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band". Why are we encouraging this when it's clearly a WP:PEACOCK sentence? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It would not be WP:PEACOCK if reliable survey results showing that fact are included. Crum375 15:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK doesn't relate to verifiability - it relates to wording. WP:PEACOCK implies that you should just show that Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band - i.e. with the facts - without the need for the actual throwaway sentence, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band". Instead, say "Polls by Time and Newsweek Magazine determined that most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band". That's the way I interpret WP:PEACOCK anyway. I'm not sure we should be encouraging throwaway sentences in an official policy while discouraging them in a style guideline. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source showing that "most Americans believe X was the greatest author" (say), I don't see that as violating the WP:PEACOCK guideline as long as we supply the direct reference (e.g. poll results). I think that WP:PEACOCK becomes an issue only without such a direct reference to a poll, or when using words such as "X was an important author" (where 'important' is vague and could mean anything - maybe he was only important to his mother and some friends). Crum375 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

First sentence

Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#The_first_sentence - it effects the first sentence of this page too. --Tango 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

POV tags

Having read WP:NPOV and related pages through again, I see that it is expected that use of the {{POV}} tag is accompanied by a reasonably full explanation on the talk page of the article. I was wondering is there any concensus that such tags can be removed if no explanation is given (or it is only a very basic ie. "I disagree" comment is made without citing problem areas and explaining the discrepancy)? There is a huge backlog of tags which undermine articles. Many seem to just be added when someone reads the topic which does not support their own POV on the subject. Thanks. WJBscribe 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Science

Because science claims to be objective and wikipedia claims there is no objectivity I have added science as a biased view to make the policy consistent. I can see many people will have problems with this. To resolve this problem please discuss. --80.56.36.253 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that Crum375 reverted my edit. Please explain or revert your edit. --80.56.36.253 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Where does WP claim there is no objectivity? Science does claim objectivity, which is synonymous to lack of bias, which is synonymous to NPOV. Hence the scientific point of view is synonymous to NPOV; removing it would remove NPOV. Crum375 15:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, wikipedia doesn't claim that, on this very page there's a link to a response to the argument that "there is no objectivity". And I don't agree with your addition either. This is an official wikipedia policy, so you shouldn't make any changes to it without getting consensus on the talk page first. And it's unreasonable to demand "explain or revert", any major change to a policy will generally be reverted if it is done unilaterally. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why doesn't the NPOV article claim that science is NPOV? Everywhere people are nuancing the views of science claiming science is a small minority view, which it always is. For example all pages of religion.

Fix your policy. There is a crisis going on between popular views and science. For example, one cannot claim that the bible is mythology because that's not NPOV while that is exactly that what is worn out by reality using scientific method.

--80.56.36.253 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The scientific method approaches every issue with an open mind. That would even include the Bible. WP's mission is to present all well sourced view points about a subject. Thus, presenting the scientific views along with any other views is exactly our mission here. WP does not seek or claim 'truth' - only to fairly present the well documented views. Crum375 15:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The scientific method ideally approaches every issue with an open mind. In practice, scientists are people who do not necessarily approach each issue with an open mind. See for example:

• "British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues, says report" (2004) EurekAlert Public release date: 16-Aug-2004
• Brian Martin, "Suppression Stories" (1997) in Fund for Intellectual Dissent ISBN 0 646 30349 X
• Juan Miguel Campanario, "Rejecting Nobel class articles and resisting Nobel class discoveries", cited in Nature, 16-Oct-2003, Vol 425, Issue 6959, p.645

--Iantresman 15:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I referred to the scientific method above as an ideal, which requires keeping an open mind. I am sure any ideal, when put into practice by fallible humans, will have all kinds of warts. But science, just like WP, keeps correcting its mistakes. Crum375 16:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Anon does raise a good issue, though. Sometimes, while editing articles on pseudoscience topics, such as perpetual motion machines, one will sometimes find oneself in an argument that science is a POV, and that, to be NPOV, one must include alternative viewpoints. This is usually in defense of some absurd, ridiculous statement; for example, that some anti-gravity machine really does work. It would be nice to have this page state that, for science articles, the NPOV is the same as the scientific viewpoint. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience for pointers to recent/currrent problem pages/problem editors in this area. linas 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if we equate science with an open mind (say), and there are a group of people who believe that keeping an open mind is wrong (for example they all must think like and obey their leader), you can have a situation where 'science is a POV'. I see no problem with that, however. WP's mission is to present all well documented prevalent views about a subject. So the correct NPOV presentation in my example would be to present the scientific POV (in relation to its prevalence, presumably large) as well as the 'follow the leader' POV in relation to its prevalence, presumably small. If the 'follow the leader' group and/or published documented proof thereof is very small, it would fall under the fringe view threshold and not be mentioned at all. If it's small but not negligible, then it would be mentioned in the periphery, per its due weight. So science per se is not NPOV - science is a specific, very prevalent, view point and method, which would normally deserve top billing at WP, but not exclusivity if there are well sourced and prevalent opposing views. The overall WP presentation must always have a neutral tone. Crum375 15:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that the notability of a view should be dependent on the number of people following it and even if there is 6 good publications only a 200 people follow it it better not be mentioned anywhere, not even in a separate article, even though the article inclusion guidelines don't require adherent number as a notability level? Should WP:N be amended? This is a very important point IMO and I would like an answer. 70.101.147.224 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Science is not all open-minded, rather it is a key balance between open-mindedness and skepticism (100% open-minded "science" is not science as we could believe everything). Like with the topic of Bigfoot mentioned below, many people in the "mainstream" sci. com. are die-hard skeptics (ie. closed-minded, they scoff at the idea that it might exist), while there are also a lot of too-gullible people outside it ("true believers" who will let nothing even modify their belief), and there is a smaller number of rational, truly "scientific" people as well, who keep that fine balance between open-mindedness and skepticism. It is the third group that I would call "science". Overall, several views do exist, into camps like "Bigfoot does exist", "Bigfoot does not exist", "I don't know", "he might exist", "he probably doesn't", etc. and to hear only one side ignores everything else. The majority view is the one that is presented most thoroughly, with the next-largest minority view given a smaller but still good amount of coverage, etc. 70.101.147.224 20:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Any comment yet? Real science is not all open-minded, nor is it all super-skeptical. It requires just the right amount of both. That is a fact. You want to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out, and you don't want to be so skeptical that you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Total open-mindedness is called "gullibility". Total skepticism is called "denial", and neither is a useful method to gain useful knowledge about things. The right approach is somewhere in the middle. If it was all open-minded anyway why are "pseudoscientific" subjects ridiculed so much? Wouldn't open-minded that much mean they'd be willing to investigate such topics with no problems? 74.38.35.171 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your assumptions. I think science is ideally totally open minded, but of course its human followers are imperfect. However, although they are individually imperfect, collectively, over time, faced with enough evidence, they open their minds as needed. As far as testing pseudoscience claims, I think it's just a matter of money - pay any scientist the right fee and s/he'll test anything for you. S/he won't do it for free because if it can't be used for publication it will have no value - very few people are idealistic/generous enough to test extremely low probability claims for free. Crum375 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

However, if we take the "scientific" point of view, as defined by the scientific method, we would have to actually apply the scientific method ourselves exactly and precisely to get a totally objective summarization of the thing, in other words a true scientific view would have to be an original publication (unless we publish it in a peer-reviwed academic journal first but then it starts to become a huge hassle), and unverifiable, which is not acceptable. If we mean, however, to present only the majority view of the mainstream scientific community, which should ideally be based on scientific method, then we would have to say on an article about Bigfoot that he does not exist as a "neutral fact". Although this is the mainstream scientific community's POV, it is not the only one in existence and there is a significant amount of research done by others outside it that has been used to support claims otherwise (with varying levels of adherence to scientific methods.). To take a "scientific" viewpoint in this sense would not give voice to this, and that would be biased and non-NPOV -- if one is going to an encyclopedia should not one hear something about the opposing view??? This means mentioning both views, with the majority view (in this case the scientific community's view) given more coverage on the article than the minority view (the pro-BF one) to ensure they are properly balanced to represent the dispute. "Neutral" does not mean "true", rather it means neutral, ie. without bias, and in characterizing disputed topics we need to present all notable points of view, either in one article or in separate ones depending on how much weight they can be given. Imagine if we had an article on Bigfoot that just said "Bigfoot is a creature some people have proported to seen, and according to the hard science of the mainstream scientific community does not really exist.", along with a brief description of the creature and a couple of cites of m.s. sci. com. pubs to back the claim. Crikey! I wouldn't expect that from an encyclopedia! 70.101.147.224 20:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Any subject may be described in an NPOV way. However, just as science has a POV, so does religion, or metaphysics. Yet they can all be described in a manner that is consistent with NPOV. Note that describing a POV does not imply the NPOV is contravened. POV is not the opposite of NPOV. --Iantresman 15:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me just say this again then; resolve this issue. Either science is NPOV and all articles should take the position of science. Or Science is POV and then put it in the list like I did. Get rid of the ambiguity. And not only to regard with psuedoscience but also with religion. --80.56.36.253 13:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your inclusion of science as a 'bias', not as a 'point of view'. To me 'bias' means to favor a particular explanation a priori. The scientific point of view is that nothing is favored a priori and anything is possible in principle, but requires experimental evidence coupled with a theoretical model. This is not a 'bias' per se, as it could accept anything at all, if shown reasonable experimental evidence and a theoretical model. It is still a 'point of view', however, since there can be another point of view, for instance, that says: "I only accept what Mr. X, my leader, tells me". If the second POV is prevalent and verifiably and reliably published, per WP's NPOV policy we must include it also, alongside with the scientific POV. Crum375 13:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The question may pose a false dilemma, and in truth is really two questions. Does Science represent the ultimate NPOV, is it the ultimate reality of our worldview? Should this be the ultimate reality adopted by WP?

A note on Crum375's language: Bias is indeed usually associated with an unfair prejudice. However, in this context it may take on a meaning closer to partiality, in that a worldview is inherently partial to its own tenets, and usually describes other worldviews in relation to its own, thus creating a bias, sometimes unfair, but often a necessity of the cognition process.

I would actually step back and ask a larger question; Is Science a worldview? This would be distinguishable from any ideas of method or particular tenets within the system. Developing this answer would be lengthy, however, a set of criteria does exist for defining and evaluating a worldview. (Contours of a Worldview, Arthur F. Holmes) In doing some work concerning Stephen Hawking, I did find that Hawking specifically, and Science in general can be concieved as constituting a worldview. This would not make it inherently wrong, or biased, it merely seeks to understand the thinking of the system from inside the system.

Perhaps and illustration from Psychology might help. The concept of counter-transference postulates that the therapist is a dynamic in the room, or that the researcher effects the research subject. Thus it is impossible to claim truly neutral clinical observations, no matter how many methods are employed, nor how many data are collected. This does not mean that the field of Psychology does not provide generally accepted concepts that repeatedly explain certain aspects of human cognitive functioning.

Science by its very stance does assert a particular worldview, or at least epistemology, that all knowledge is discernible through the senses and is subject to the concept of falsification. That the collection of such knowledge be done in a reductionistic environment, wherein variables are controlled as to ascertain the specific effects of only one variable at a time. It is an approach to knowledge, one that has stood for some time and is widely accepted. Science has an epistemology, and as such may be said to have partiality to itself.

I'm afraid that much more will simply become rambling. Let me try to provide a resolution to the question posed.

• Science is not inherently the ultimate NPOV. In fact the scientific approach is quite the opposite. All research starts with a question, to which the researcher generates a hypothesis, an answer. The experiment then attempts to prove out that hypothesis, accepting the possibility that it is actually false. Through the process a verified concept emerges, but is not neutral as the concept is posited here.
• All articles should not adopt the Scientific worldview, rather, like all academic writing, they should instead constitute a neutral treatment of the ideas that they cover. Too often the issue seems to revolve around the content rather than the presentation. Article content can be anything, the NPOV policy is a relfection of the larger academic communities assent to the presentation of content in a manner that does not affirm or deny it, rather expresses it in a readable and concise fashion.
• A NPOV discussion of current trends in philosophy will reveal advancements in thought where objectivity is rejected as it is classically understood, while still allowing for external existence. I am quite sure WP as a whole will not stake a claim with Hume in this regard. But the original question does offer an exemplar of the manner in which the Science worldview is one among other worldviews, specifically those which question the correlation between the mind and reality. Both of these worldviews are well researched and well advocated, and I do not intend to suggest that the later is linked with any specific religion.

I do not believe that so much controversy need exist, specifically where science and religion are seen to overlap. Both are attempts to explain phenomenon, to explain reality. It has been possible to convey those explanations, and any responses to those explanations from a NPOV since the advent of philosophy. Admittedly at times, such portrayals become advocacy. Even if the content in question is a debate concerning the adaptability of science to religion, it should be easy to convey the debate using NPOV language. (cf. Gender Inclusive Language)

D. M. Arney, M.A. 09:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Significant" views

Hi.

One thing mentioned here is that only "significant" views should be represented. But what makes a view "significant"? Could this potentially be related to notability? 74.38.34.192 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is indirectly related, since the main criteria are the quality and quantity of published articles. I think articles that are published by mainstream reputable peer-reviewed publications carry more 'significance' than those published elsewhere or that are not peer-reviewed. Articles that get frequently cited by others are also more 'significant'. Also, since as a tertiary publication we strive to rely on secondary ones, we can rely on secondary publications to actually prioritize the 'significance'. For example, a mainsteam textbook surveying the field can present all views and suggest their relative preponderance or significance. At the end of the day it is up to the WP editors, working collectively, to reach a consensus as to the actual significance of the various views based on these (and other) criteria. Crum375 00:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So could these criteria potentially aid in the development of a good WP:N guideline? 70.101.147.91 09:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Any response? What "other criteria" are you referring to, anyway? 74.38.35.171 21:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

School newspaper: reliable source?

There's a discussion at Talk:Taylor Allderdice High School#RFC over whether a school newspaper is a reliable source and how information sourced from it should be represented, if at all? Thoughts welcome to build a consensus. Hiding Talk 16:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

POV / NPOV Clarification

Further to my earlier suggestion on POV above, I'd like to suggest the following changing to the introductory paragraph, which currently doesn't mention "POVs" (changes marked in red):

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant points of views (POVs) that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial.

--Iantresman 16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Crum375 16:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Points of view (not views). -- Visviva 17:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it would be nice to keep this as non-alphabet-soupy as possible. Maybe just link the text "points of view," like so? Not a big deal either way, though. -- Visviva 17:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is worth including "POVs" as well as "points of view", because it is quite a common acronym that is used frequently in talk pages? --Iantresman 17:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I think Iantresman's point is to specifically show that 'POV' as an acronym is not a pejorative, as some people seem to think, and in fact is the normal expected content of WP. If we just hyperlink the words as Visviva suggests, the correction of the (incorrect) POV connotation would be lost. Crum375 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Spot on. Many people think that POVs are bad. But any statement is a POV, it's just that it is needs to be described neutrally, which reminds people that an NPOV is a representation of a POV. --Iantresman 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the change? --Iantresman 20:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I support it, FWIW. Be bold and find out. Crum375 02:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I also approve the proposed changes (both the original proposed earlier and the one listed here), way more specific and sufficient in clarity. The current introduction beats around the bush a little. I think you have recalibrated it very nicely.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. -Ionized 23:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that these suggested changes add nothing substantial. Would prefer to keep as is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not about adding something substantial. It's about adding something that improves the text that is already there. Since it is commonly misunderstood that NPOV is the opposite of POV, I would say that they changes achieve that. --Iantresman 02:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Such a distinction is a necessary nuance. It is often the precision of language that helps to avoid later ambiguity.

Re: Bias, as I posted in the earlier discussion moments ago, bias in its strictest sense is appropriate here, but the nuance of the word has been washed away. Thus simply stating that an article "must fairly represent" seems more than adequate, and will save us the trouble of a metaphysical debate about objectivity, instead focusing the issue on the use of the language, and not the user.

D. M. Arney, M.A. 09:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I agree with the proposed change - it is clearer, and we need to eliminate ambiguity in core policies. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What does this apply to?

"However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article." - taken from NPOV Pseudoscience

Which Wiki entry does this apply to? The "pseudoscientific" position entry itself or other entries that mention that "pseudoscientific" view.70.61.219.34 12:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)adlac

It applies to how the viewpoints on some subject are balanced in the article. Majority views (usually mainstream scientific views) are given the highest weight in the article, then the next highest weight goes to the largest minority, then below that the still smaller minority, etc. Ie. minority views (which may or may not be "pseudoscience") should not be overrepresented as though they were majority views, smaller-minority views should not be represented as large-minority views, etc. 70.101.147.224 00:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (to a point), however, the context matters in relation to the question. Pseudoscience is a dysphemism, and is usually used to denigrate a position in its popular form. However, with regard to a question of scientific interpretation as relates to a specific article, pseudoscience is a technical term. Thus while holding a place as a view, it should not be given priority over the actual scientific position. Namely, the subject of the article should remain the subject of the article. I disagree however that the concept is universally applicable, science does happen to be in the word. Science at any one time has a majority view, that is its nature. However wrong that view may be, it is the majority while it is held. Humanities does not share the same mentality, and as such may not be so easily understood in the above hierarchy. It is conceded however, that though there is usually no majority opinion, there are still significant opinions that have more scholarship than others. In an article that generally reviews the subject, those views that do not make up the significant proportion of the discussion ought not be given greater prominence then those that do.

D. M. Arney, M.A. 10:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Point of View and perception

Deepak Chopra says perception and point of view is woven into the perciever
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 07:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So Amusing

"...representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias"

lol. truly.

Even when 100% factual, documented proof is added to "articles" like Global Warming, Ray Nagin, Evolution, they are editied out because some left wing Admins can't comprehend this fact: Consensus <> Truth. Facts = truth.

12.145.177.110 21:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV = Objectivism, Philsophical Foundations

To say the least the NPOV and the presented view of knowledge is not well expressed. The NPOV principle is based on the blief in objectivism. There is nothing wrong with that, but it should be mentioned somewhere. For example the so often included trivias are neutral, but plain, trivial facts are not something one should call knowledge. I think there should be a guideline where to include trivias. It seems the answer to the question has to do something with the audience of an article.

A further ellaboration of the philosophcal foundations should be very valueable for the Wikipedia project.

A very good cristism on the topic: Lanier on wikipedia's objectivism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.135.111 (talk • contribs) ([1])

Well, I think you're make a slight mistake there: "There's no such thing as objectivity" is part of Wikipedia's NPOV policy as long as I know.

This might surprise, while indeed it is no secret that Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, is more than sympathetic towards the objectivist philosophy. Personally, I can't very well identify with objectivism. But that's no problem: NPOV policy explains how come that objectivists and non-objectivists (as well as religious people and atheists, and..., and...) can cooperate on building the same encyclopedia. If "objectivism" were the core of the NPOV policy, I'd expect Wikipedia to be today about as big as Nupedia.

Re. Trivia, we have the Wikipedia:Trivia essay. Maybe that answers some of your questions. It is a bit philosophical, in fact I'd wish it were more practical. --Francis Schonken 20:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

PS, Lanier doesn't mention "objectivism", "objectivity", "neutrality", "neutral point of view", "NPOV", nor "trivia" in the essay you linked to. Your analysis/summary of that essay seems a bit awkward. --Francis Schonken 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very glad for the responses. If may well be that objectivsm is the wrong - Lanier uses the word collectivsm. I hope it's clear that this relates to the NPOV policy. "A core belief of the wiki world is that whatever problems exist in the wiki will be incrementally corrected as the process unfolds." I wouldn't go so far as Lanier to call the approach foolish - I would call it naive. In any case it's clear that to some extent Wikipedia's 'epistomoligical' roots are not layed out properly.

Trust in "incremental correction" is not an aspect of NPOV policy, nor does Lanier imply that. Relying on "incremental correction" is tied to the (in fact tied to any) Wiki system, and that's how Lanier describes it. Note that "trust in incremental correction" is not a philosophical flaw (as Lanier tries to conclude, pre-emptively), for instance Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies defends "incremental correction" as the best available system, in general, in that writing primarily applied to political philosophy (in other writings he applies it, for instance, to the development of science), about half a century before "Wiki" technology as we know it came into existence.

But no, I don't think that "epistomological layout" needs to be clarified, or that it is improperly implemented currently. Wikipedia is not a philosophy blog. In other words, Lanier can write what he wants, and it may, or may not, be useful to think about it, but for Wikipedia that philophising is not an in-site occupation, nor does it need to be. (this philophising may be appropriate, for instance, at Wikiversity or at meta: to some extent, but that are other Wikis). --Francis Schonken 15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As if the problem would disappear by ignoring it. Saying that a meta-discussion is not part of the policies is beside the point. This disucssion is a philosophical meta-discussion and the wikiproject has a philosophical standpoint - there is no way exscaping this. That there is something like the Wikiversity shows exactly the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.135.15 (talk • contribs) ([2])

Pardon? You've been particularily unsuccessful in demonstrating there is a problem... The fact that you didn't seem able to read Lanier's blog as it was written didn't help either. I don't even think Lanier was able to point out a problem (as I explained above).

Nonetheless, for completeness, I'd like to point you to Jimbo Wales' Statement of principles, particularily point 6, which I quote here in its entirity:

The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia. Very limited meta-discussion of the nature of the Wikipedia should be placed on the site itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward, not inward at the Wikipedia itself.

Since Jimbo Wales wrote this some 5 years ago, multiple mailing lists have come into existence: the ones most appropriate for trans-Wikipedia meta-discussions I suppose to be either mail:foundation-l or mail:wikipedia-l. --Francis Schonken 11:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, isn’t a Neutral Point of View policy technically flawed since no perspective can be neutral? I mean, the very meaning of a ‘point of view’ insinuates that there is someone viewing it, which inherently incorporates biases. Nothing seems able to be completely objective or neutral; it is just accepted via consensus, convention or presumption. After all, saying something as trivial as ‘2 + 1 = 3’ imparts an ordinal prejudice (as opposed to ‘1 + 2 = 3’).

I assume one would retort that the aim is to achieve as neutral a point of view as possible, which is fine except it seems flawed (and somewhat cruel) to make an unobtainable ideal into an adamant and invulnerable policy. I guess at this point someone would tactfully point out that I’m just a raving lunatic, which seems about right. Don’t pay me too much heed, just trying to stir things up philosophically and metaphysically :P --Relex 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.244.24 (talk • contribs) ([3])

I already linked to the NPOV FAQ above, here's that same link again: There's no such thing as objectivity --Francis Schonken 11:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is maddening, but unsigned above has at least crystalized the point by saying "it seems flawed (and somewhat cruel) to make an unobtainable ideal into an adamant and invulnerable policy". (I think he meant inviolate, but whatever) In essence, however, NPOV is not a state, but a process. It is an ideal that is a target, and as such provides guidance for editing. It is a principle that implies many policy points, and it is not cruel to enshrine. Every organization that co-ordinates humans in a common effort needs governing principles, even if they're implicit. It may be flawed, but it provides sufficient structure to make Wikipedia worth reading. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV = Alternative reasoning supporting NPOV

Here's a proposed new section to the NPOV page, to insert probably just after the "Reasoning behind NPOV" section. In a way, it may avoid some of the heat in the objections about objectivism.

Please give comments: should/may I add this to the main NPOV page? Steved2 20:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative reasoning supporting NPOV

Much of the time people worry about how to find good information: what is true, how much to trust it. Most of the discussion about NPOV presupposes that readers are focussed on this. However another way of looking at what we learn, and particularly at what we want to find out when we consult an encyclopaedia, is: what do other people mean and think when they use a given term? For this, it doesn't matter what is true. In fact even from an early age we pick up this "meta" or "status" information about knowledge: in music we learn that there are many different styles, and no consensus about which are good and which are bad, whereas in arithmetic everyone agrees about what is true and there's no point in bothering about alternative opinions in that area (unless you are a research mathematician). Adhering to the NPOV policy ensures readers get this status information that in fact nearly everyone wants and needs.

If you are a radical relativist, and think there is no such thing as objective viewpoints or universal truths, you want to know what these alternatives are, what other people think. If (at the other philosophical extreme) you are a fundamentalist (say a fundamentalist atheist, who believes all religions other than atheism should be banned as dangerous), and you think there is only one truth and conflicting views are both wrong and dangerous, you almost certainly need to know what the other views are in order to combat them and in order to direct your efforts to change others' minds. Thus whatever your view of truth in general, and your view of a given topic in particular, you usually want to know about the main alternative views and the degree of both human and evidential support for them: this is an underemphasised but pervasive aspect of knowledge, and is particularly what you want in getting a first orientation to a topic (which is the chief function of an encyclopaedia). This aspect of orientation is also important for preparing you for following up literature in the area (is it all likely to be in agreement, if lacking in self-criticism; or do you need to explore several literatures to understand the different viewpoints?).

This is true both for grand issues such as the meaning of life, for important practical policy issues such as what are the best national policies for reducing the incidence of AIDS, and also for largely mundane things such as which side of the road the traffic drives on: an article that either only mentioned one side, or spent passion arguing whether left or right was better wouldn't be nearly so useful as one warning that there is no global consensus (the ratio of countries adopting right:left is about 2:1), but that you can expect total consensus within a country and so only need to worry when crossing frontiers.

Yet another kind of reasoning behind adopting an NPOV policy comes from educational theory. Most educational theories today involve, one way or another, the basic insights of "constructivism": that teaching is not just telling, that learning is not just listening. When we think of basic information e.g. what is your email address?, what is the German word for "invoice"?, perhaps telling is the right view; but the more the content is conceptually complex, the more we have to recognise that learning entails construction hidden in the mind of the learner as they link in new structures to what they personally have already in their minds, and the most a teacher can do is to provide some materials for this. The NPOV policy is about providing those materials, and is comparable to teaching by facilitation, while POV approaches are similar to trying to teach by mere telling.

For wikipedia to be used, it needs to give value to readers, and an NPOV policy enriches the content. However we should recognise that for wikipedia to grow, it has to be enjoyable for authors. There is a deep pleasure that almost all of us feel in having our say, in telling it to the best of our ability, giving our best summary synthesis: perhaps an innate human desire to teach, to share knowledge, which underpins the existence of culture in all human societies. We have to recognise, however painfully, that this pleasure is not always and automatically aligned with the greatest value for readers. Perhaps we can redirect our "telling" impulses from telling a conclusion to contributing the main materials from which we built our own synthesis. It is this natural tension between our human POV tendencies as story tellers, and the superior nourishing qualities of NPOV for readers, that gives rise to this debate and to the need for a conscious and explicit NPOV policy.

In summary: information about the status of beliefs in a given area is useful to most readers independently of views about the nature of truth, the nature of the subject matter, and even of ideas about fairness, truth, justice, etc. Equally, readers usually have an interest in knowing about the views of others independently of any choice they themselves may make of which view to favour, and what degree of certainty to accord it. Hence the "NPOV" approach to articles is useful to readers whether or not someone has the truth about a topic, and whether or not there really is such a thing as a neutral viewpoint.

Steved2 20:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the approach, but I think the text given is to long and a bit preachy. Loose the examples and the education theory (which is POV ;-). and rewrite the rest for better flow. The first paragraph is rather good, but does not need all the rest to prop it up. Indeed, just gettting rid of all but that paragraph would be a good first approach. --Stephan Schulz 12:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't like it that as soon as I read your remarks I could see what you mean! so I'll go away an brood. I suppose that although you can indeed say that the education theory is POV, my thought here was to suggest that multiple POVs all lead to the same "NPOV" policy, and so make the overall NPOV page less POV in a way. -- Steved2 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this should go into an essay on NPOV rationale. Perhaps some core concepts should be added to NPOV policy itself per consensus. Crum375 14:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)