Changes

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==   

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==   

According to The Jimbo, the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means).  While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

According to [[Jimmy Wales]], the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means).  While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject.  But on WP, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning.  The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject.  But on WP, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning.  The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' WP articles.  How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula?  And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes?  Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being?  It is mind boggling.  It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes.  How could it be otherwise?  NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).

Keep in mind that NPOV is a mandatory policy which applies to '''all''' WP articles.  How, pray, is one expected to manufacture a “NPOV” for a non-controversial subject using this formula?  And what of controversial subjects which actually involve taboos, i.e., where one of the contending viewpoints is overwhelmingly accepted, and the other nearly universally rejected due violations of social taboos and/or criminal statutes?  Can one really be “neutral” about genocide or childhood sexual abuse and still be a human being?  It is mind boggling.  It is little wonder that a basic standard that is so illogical and unachievable is the cause of so many content disputes.  How could it be otherwise?  NPOV creates so many opportunities for polemicists to argue that their position is more “neutral” than those of others by simply divorcing that word from its normal definition in a dictionary (wikispeak: “dictdef”).

A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description.  In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument.  Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy.  Is this some weird tenet of Randianism?  Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which The Jimbo claims to be a devotee, could explain this.

A far more rational approach would have been to construct a policy requiring that contending viewpoints (where they exist) to be given a fair, accurate and balanced description.  In other words, ''describe'' the position and arguments in support, but don’t ''make'' the argument.  Frankly, I cannot imagine why a policy which requires editors to manufacture some artificial “neutral” viewpoint was ever deemed a good idea for an encyclopedia, much less ''the'' core policy.  Is this some weird tenet of Randianism?  Perhaps someone more familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand and her “objectivist” philosophy, of which Wales claims to be a devotee, could explain this.

[img]http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg[/img]

[img]http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6620/1book28fx3.jpg[/img]