Myself, I consider NPOV as what distinguishes an encyclopedia from
promotion and advocacy. Agreed it is hard to get there completely, but
the effort to approximate it is what makes Wikipedia a work of
reference, and conservopedia a joke. ~~~~
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Anthony<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Jussi-Ville
Heiskanen <
cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Wikinews does not adhere to the strict NPOV interpretation that is
inevitable for Wikipedia. Wikiversity could not even come close
to employing anything remotely like it. Wikispecies actually
doesn't have any need for anything like it. And for Wikisource,
just as for Wikinews, NPOV can only be considered to apply in
a thoroughly transmogrified form.
Knowing very little about Wikiversity and Wikispecies, I'd be interested in
how that can work. I mean, for the general public to collaborate on a wiki,
you have to have some form of rule about objectivity, don't you?
I understand that NPOV has a meaning within the English Wikipedia which
doesn't apply in most of the other projects, but there is an essence of it
that applies to all the projects, isn't there?
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm really interested in your answer if I am.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l