Blue sky thinking around "neutral point of view"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Blue sky thinking around "neutral point of view"

Jon-29
Just some blue sky thinking:
   
  Our neutral point of view policy has aroused a fair bit of discussion at [[WP:NPOV]]
  recently, and this has got me thinking:
   
  We've all seen arguments where people keep arguing that this is "POV" or someone
  is being "POV" where in normal English we'd just call something an "opinion" and
  note that someone has an opinion on something. Indeed, the made-up term POV
  is bandied around usually to mean something along the lines of - you are wrong,
  I am right, and because it is a NPOV issue, the point is non-negotiable, which isn't
  a very good place to start from if the issue is to be resolved. Plus far too many
  people read NPOV as equating to "no point of view" as opposed to the real requirement, which is to write from a neutral viewpoint.
   
  My blue sky thinking (which I don't claim to be a panacea, just an interesting thought) is why don't we rename the policy page [[Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint]] and make
  the shortcut link to it [[WP:NEUVIEW]] (or [[WP:NEUTVIEW]]). It goes without
  saying that the underlying concept behind the policy would remain completely
  unchanged - just the name of the page would change - plus it would enhance
  people's perceptions that it is about requiring a neutral viewpoint, rather than no
  viewpoint, or neutrality more generally: it would help define the policy in positive terms
  and (and perhaps I'm going too far here:) ) may help stop content disputes escalating
  in scale and viciousness.
   
  Kind regards
   
  Jon
  (jguk)

               
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Blue sky thinking around "neutral point of view"

Philip Welch
> \Just some blue sky thinking:
>
>   Our neutral point of view policy has aroused a fair bit of  
> discussion at [[WP:NPOV]]
>   recently, and this has got me thinking:
>
>   We've all seen arguments where people keep arguing that this is  
> "POV" or someone
>   is being "POV" where in normal English we'd just call something  
> an "opinion" and
>   note that someone has an opinion on something. Indeed, the made-
> up term POV
>   is bandied around usually to mean something along the lines of -  
> you are wrong,
>   I am right, and because it is a NPOV issue, the point is non-
> negotiable, which isn't
>   a very good place to start from if the issue is to be resolved.  
> Plus far too many
>   people read NPOV as equating to "no point of view" as opposed to  
> the real requirement, which is to write from a neutral viewpoint.
>
>   My blue sky thinking (which I don't claim to be a panacea, just  
> an interesting thought) is why don't we rename the policy page  
> [[Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint]] and make
>   the shortcut link to it [[WP:NEUVIEW]] (or [[WP:NEUTVIEW]]). It  
> goes without
>   saying that the underlying concept behind the policy would remain  
> completely
>   unchanged - just the name of the page would change - plus it  
> would enhance
>   people's perceptions that it is about requiring a neutral  
> viewpoint, rather than no
>   viewpoint, or neutrality more generally: it would help define the  
> policy in positive terms
>   and (and perhaps I'm going too far here:) ) may help stop content  
> disputes escalating
>   in scale and viciousness.

That might work. On the other hand, that might be about as effective  
as changing "Votes for Deletion" to "Articles for Deletion". Renaming  
things only serves to disguise problems in a quasi-Orwellian manner--
it doesn't really solve them.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Blue sky thinking around "neutral point of view"

Haukur Þorgeirsson
In reply to this post by Jon-29
I, too, am sick and tired of the acronym "POV" thrown around as an insult.
I doubt we can gather enough steam to deprecate the [[WP:NPOV]] shortcut
but my suggestion for an alternative would be [[WP:NEUTRAL]].

Regards,
Haukur


> Just some blue sky thinking:
>
>   Our neutral point of view policy has aroused a fair bit of discussion at
> [[WP:NPOV]]
>   recently, and this has got me thinking:
>
>   We've all seen arguments where people keep arguing that this is "POV" or
> someone
>   is being "POV" where in normal English we'd just call something an
> "opinion" and
>   note that someone has an opinion on something. Indeed, the made-up term
> POV
>   is bandied around usually to mean something along the lines of - you are
> wrong,
>   I am right, and because it is a NPOV issue, the point is non-negotiable,
> which isn't
>   a very good place to start from if the issue is to be resolved. Plus far
> too many
>   people read NPOV as equating to "no point of view" as opposed to the
> real requirement, which is to write from a neutral viewpoint.
>
>   My blue sky thinking (which I don't claim to be a panacea, just an
> interesting thought) is why don't we rename the policy page
> [[Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint]] and make
>   the shortcut link to it [[WP:NEUVIEW]] (or [[WP:NEUTVIEW]]). It goes
> without
>   saying that the underlying concept behind the policy would remain
> completely
>   unchanged - just the name of the page would change - plus it would
> enhance
>   people's perceptions that it is about requiring a neutral viewpoint,
> rather than no
>   viewpoint, or neutrality more generally: it would help define the policy
> in positive terms
>   and (and perhaps I'm going too far here:) ) may help stop content
> disputes escalating
>   in scale and viciousness.
>
>   Kind regards
>
>   Jon
>   (jguk)
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
> voicemail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Blue sky thinking around "neutral point of view"

Katefan0
I've begun making a conscious effort to stop using "POV" and instead use the
word bias, which is really more appropriate as a descriptor for bad behavior
vis a vis this policy.

-k


On 1/25/06, Haukur Þorgeirsson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I, too, am sick and tired of the acronym "POV" thrown around as an insult.
> I doubt we can gather enough steam to deprecate the [[WP:NPOV]] shortcut
> but my suggestion for an alternative would be [[WP:NEUTRAL]].
>
> Regards,
> Haukur
>
>
> > Just some blue sky thinking:
> >
> >   Our neutral point of view policy has aroused a fair bit of discussion
> at
> > [[WP:NPOV]]
> >   recently, and this has got me thinking:
> >
> >   We've all seen arguments where people keep arguing that this is "POV"
> or
> > someone
> >   is being "POV" where in normal English we'd just call something an
> > "opinion" and
> >   note that someone has an opinion on something. Indeed, the made-up
> term
> > POV
> >   is bandied around usually to mean something along the lines of - you
> are
> > wrong,
> >   I am right, and because it is a NPOV issue, the point is
> non-negotiable,
> > which isn't
> >   a very good place to start from if the issue is to be resolved. Plus
> far
> > too many
> >   people read NPOV as equating to "no point of view" as opposed to the
> > real requirement, which is to write from a neutral viewpoint.
> >
> >   My blue sky thinking (which I don't claim to be a panacea, just an
> > interesting thought) is why don't we rename the policy page
> > [[Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint]] and make
> >   the shortcut link to it [[WP:NEUVIEW]] (or [[WP:NEUTVIEW]]). It goes
> > without
> >   saying that the underlying concept behind the policy would remain
> > completely
> >   unchanged - just the name of the page would change - plus it would
> > enhance
> >   people's perceptions that it is about requiring a neutral viewpoint,
> > rather than no
> >   viewpoint, or neutrality more generally: it would help define the
> policy
> > in positive terms
> >   and (and perhaps I'm going too far here:) ) may help stop content
> > disputes escalating
> >   in scale and viciousness.
> >
> >   Kind regards
> >
> >   Jon
> >   (jguk)
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
> > voicemail
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Blue sky thinking around "neutral point of view"

Chip Berlet
In reply to this post by Jon-29
This is a bit snide (what a shock coming from me) but it makes some good points about relative value of material. It was in answer to a question about my editing philosophy (no, really stop laughing, I have one).
 
The issue is not just NPOV, but evaluating the importance of data. That's what editorial judgement for an encyclopdia is about: both NPOV and relative value.
 
= =
 

        Maybe I am reading Wiki policies in an odd way, and I am happy for others to offer their views, but I think there are essentially five levels.

       

        1. The majority view of the recognized experts in a field, and reputable authors in "mainstream" edited publications.

       

        1. Minority views of published scholars in a field, and authors in "mainstream" edited publications.

       

        1. Minority views of published scholars and authors in marginal but edited publications.

       

        1. Minority views of authors in marginal publications and websites that nonetheless provide valuable insights or which have received public attention.

       

        1. Idiosyncratic views that are essentialy self-published, overly conspiracist, or lunatic.

        In regular encyclopedias, the focus is on detailing the first category, with some small mentions of the second category, and sometimes a brief discussion of publicized controversies in any of the categories. Here on Wikipedia, there is more latitude, and more room for detailing the lesser categories.

        But I do not believe that minor theories should displace majority scholarship on main pages. And since there are plenty of websites, I do not think that every minority view needs to be detialed here. That's what search engines provide. The goal of a universal online encyclopedia such as Wiki is to help readers find the most reliable majority views on a subject, important minority views, with pointers to lesser views.

        The claim that dissident scholars and authors are "censored" in the United States is hyperbolic. Attacked, vilified, sometimes not rehired or even fired, yes; but not censored. Take an example of the political left, with publishers such as Routledge, The New Press, South End Press, Common Courage Press, etc, and magazines such as the Nation, In These Times, Z Magazine, Mother Jones, etc. there are plenty of edited published sources for dissident minority views. This is also true on the political right, with numerous book and periodical publishers.

        The problem is with Wiki editors who insist that every one of their pet theories, and the blobs of original POV research they have stumbled across while surfing the Web, deserves extended text entries on Wikipedia. This is a false--and frankly irritating and disruptive--notion that demonstrates that there is an endless supply of people whose egocentrism and sense of self importance vastly exceeds their competance and intellect.

-Cberlet


________________________________

From: [hidden email] on behalf of Katefan0
Sent: Wed 1/25/2006 3:51 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blue sky thinking around "neutral point of view"



I've begun making a conscious effort to stop using "POV" and instead use the
word bias, which is really more appropriate as a descriptor for bad behavior
vis a vis this policy.

-k

<<SNIP>>


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Blue sky thinking around "neutral point of view"

Steve Bennett-4
In reply to this post by Philip Welch
While we're at it, anyone care to deal with the term "POV-pusher"? It
seems to me legitimate for someone to take an underrepresented but
valid point of view (eg, "The US is not the centre of everything worth
describing on Wikipedia"), and systematically adapting articles to
include this point of view. If someone distorts an article to the
point where it over-represents a minority viewpoint, that would be one
thing. But systematically expanding the range of viewpoints in
articles to include a more global viewpoint...

Steve

On 1/25/06, Philip Welch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > \Just some blue sky thinking:
> >
> >   Our neutral point of view policy has aroused a fair bit of
> > discussion at [[WP:NPOV]]
> >   recently, and this has got me thinking:
> >
> >   We've all seen arguments where people keep arguing that this is
> > "POV" or someone
> >   is being "POV" where in normal English we'd just call something
> > an "opinion" and
> >   note that someone has an opinion on something. Indeed, the made-
> > up term POV
> >   is bandied around usually to mean something along the lines of -
> > you are wrong,
> >   I am right, and because it is a NPOV issue, the point is non-
> > negotiable, which isn't
> >   a very good place to start from if the issue is to be resolved.
> > Plus far too many
> >   people read NPOV as equating to "no point of view" as opposed to
> > the real requirement, which is to write from a neutral viewpoint.
> >
> >   My blue sky thinking (which I don't claim to be a panacea, just
> > an interesting thought) is why don't we rename the policy page
> > [[Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint]] and make
> >   the shortcut link to it [[WP:NEUVIEW]] (or [[WP:NEUTVIEW]]). It
> > goes without
> >   saying that the underlying concept behind the policy would remain
> > completely
> >   unchanged - just the name of the page would change - plus it
> > would enhance
> >   people's perceptions that it is about requiring a neutral
> > viewpoint, rather than no
> >   viewpoint, or neutrality more generally: it would help define the
> > policy in positive terms
> >   and (and perhaps I'm going too far here:) ) may help stop content
> > disputes escalating
> >   in scale and viciousness.
>
> That might work. On the other hand, that might be about as effective
> as changing "Votes for Deletion" to "Articles for Deletion". Renaming
> things only serves to disguise problems in a quasi-Orwellian manner--
> it doesn't really solve them.
>
> --
> Philip L. Welch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Blue sky thinking around "neutral point of view"

Philip Welch
> While we're at it, anyone care to deal with the term "POV-pusher"? It
> seems to me legitimate for someone to take an underrepresented but
> valid point of view (eg, "The US is not the centre of everything worth
> describing on Wikipedia"), and systematically adapting articles to
> include this point of view. If someone distorts an article to the
> point where it over-represents a minority viewpoint, that would be one
> thing. But systematically expanding the range of viewpoints in
> articles to include a more global viewpoint...

POV pushers exist, and if we ban the term, we'll come up with another  
term to replace it. We have to realize that increasingly, there are  
editors who act in bad faith to popularize a given viewpoint or agenda.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Blue sky thinking around "neutral point of view"

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
On 1/27/06, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> While we're at it, anyone care to deal with the term "POV-pusher"?

I believe the word 'pusher' connotes more than wanting to improve
Wikipedia's balance; it implies a wish to over-promote a certain
viewpoint and especially to REMOVE viewpoints the pusher disagrees
with.

Of course, some POV-pushers THINK they're just correcting bias.

-Matt
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l