--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>Oh boy, that's gonna be hard to keep NPOV ;-)
(no
Mav)
IMO it can't and shouldn't. The POV of whatever
textbook is being worked on
should be a "Discipline Point Of View." This means
that if a textbook is on
Biology then the POV of biologists should be in the
book. There will be
neutrality rules but they only apply from within
whatever discipline the
textbook is being written for. So for example a
chapter on evolution would
focus on the major differing views on the subject
that exist from within the
biological sciences but it would not seriously
consider the POV of groups
outside the biological sciences.
The reason why our encyclopedias have to be NPOV is
because our audience is a
general one. The reason why our textbooks have to be
DPOV is because our
audience is very focused (the biology student, for
example) and we need to
bring that student through the material in a logical
and efficient way.
No. Wrong. One do not have to throw away NPOV just for
the reason the audience is more focused. That has
nothing to do.
Logical and efficient is totally compatible with NPOV.
What you suggest is "cutting" very important
information, that students will later need to make
informed decisions. Removing infos is neither logical
nor efficient in the long term.
Same thing is true for a section of a medical
textbook on abortion ; we leave
out most of the history and the different political
views on the subject and
just talk about the procedure itself and maybe have
a single paragraph at the
end sating something about access to the procedure
and that risks doctors
face when they choose to specialize in this area.
I disagree with you Mav.
By thus doing, we will only propose technical books,
cold and disincarnated. That is against what some
people consider education is.
There are some aspects, even of technical education,
that require understanding of politics, that require
ethical information. A book limiting itself to the
pure technical gestures to apply is *bad*. Very bad.
This is particularly true in the biological domain you
cite. Teaching abortion just from the technical
procedure is an error. If only because abortion is
allowed in some places, not allowed in others, and
this should be known. Also because an abortion is a
terrible act for most women to undergo, and *no*
doctor should know it only from the tech point of
view. He should be aware of the psychological impact
of such a gesture, if he wants to propose and to
proceed with such an act with the physical and
psychological consent of the mother-to-be. Also
because he should be aware of all the limits to such
an act from a religious point of view.
Offering bare technical teaching is wrong.
Similarly, in agriculture, it makes no sense to *just*
understand how fertilization works, if you do not
understand the pollution it creates, the CAP rules
about N uses and the incentives. Just providing the
tech info is just giving enough information for
survival, not for thinking and making good decisions.
So textbooks are inherently POV - that is why each
time somebody tried to
write a textbook in Wikipedia their efforts were
quickly thwarted.
Sorry ?
Do we have examples ?
Textbooks are organized in a very different way than
an encyclopedia and they
also have a specific audience. These two things make
textbook material
completely incompatible with Wikipedia. Thus a
separate project is needed
(and probably a few tweaks to the software to make
it easy to have chapters).
Along with chapters on the ethical aspects of creating
GMOs, using Xenogreffes, offering life to abnormal
babies. Yes. Many chapters. Thank god, there is no
room limitation.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com