Absolutely 100% correct.
Essentially, in taking this thread to its
reductionist (or logical) extreme,
one would have to concede that *all* points of view,
including NPOV, *are
points of view*.
I'd say NPOV is more like a meta-POV. Unlike the
meta-POV of choosing one specific POV and teaching it,
NPOV treats all different POVs equally. It is on a
whole different level that bias.
We should note that going too far in the direction
of NPOV - which is where
this thread is heading - is *exactly* the process
engaged by commercial
textbook publishers in an attempt to please
everyone. We need only look an
90% of the K-12 textbooks out there to see the kind
of pedagogical
medoicrity that this approach has led to.
What the textbook companies make is far from NPOV.
What they have is a series of sometimes dubious facts
all purporting to be correct. They also have unrelated
facts in places to satisfy certain people. I don't
think anyone wants Wikibooks to be like this.
I think DPOV (except where there is legitimate
contraversy *within* the field), combined with a blurb
about how this reflects one specific POV, would be the
best. This blurb doesn't have to be long, and it can
acknowledge that almost everyone agrees with it, but I
still think it would be beneficial. Maybe it would
just be online, not printed.
It seems like most people are advocating for NPOV for
Wikibooks but really mean DPOV without the blurbs
mentioned above.
Thus, following this line of argument, obsessive
NPOV (ultimately, within
the contect of the Wikipedia project) = *NO* point
of view = no text or
texts worse than what we see from the commercial
sector. That's where this
argument - accurately characterized as "misguided",
is headed.
NPOV just means that the reader decides. This may not
be what we need for Wikibooks, as I already said, but
it is not that there is no POV. I have no idea where
you came up with that NPOV means no text.
Further thoughts:
There is *no* way to escape the subjective bias of
*any* author(s).
There is no way to create a wiki that covers all
encyclopedic topics, yet we still aim for it.
Similarly, we can escape *some* subjective bias, and
we should do as much as we can.
However,
some authors, and books, work hard to present
material in a way that
presents all sides *without* burdening the *purpose*
of the book with side
issues that divert it from it's primary goal. I
think that's the point that
Jimmy was making when he says "The point is, if
there is legitimate
controversy, then the text itself need take no
particular stand, but rather
present the conflict in a way that all parties can
agree." With respect, I
would slightly alter Jimmy's end statement to read
as follows: "....but
rather present the conflict in a way that all
parties can *agree to
disagree*."
I think that's about what he meant, but personally, I
like his version better.
The goal of the Wikipedia textbook project is to
take the best state
framework structures, and build content around those
structures. The
curriculum specifics of those frameworks are *very*
specific. They're meant
to be. One can be NPOV within the context of
curriculum frameworks, but be
assured that working within any framework is POV.
It's simply unavoidable.
Pick your poison.
In the case of textbooks built around state-approved
frameworks, there *is*
an *implicit purpose* built in. That purpose is to
create a tool (the
textbook) that will help a teacher present material
in a way that the
groups - those approving the textbook frameworks in
the first place -
'approve' of. Those groups have - to the best of
their ability (with
respect, these efforts vary in quality from
state-to-state) - *already* gone
through their own NPOV process!
In California's case, for example, the curriuculum
frameworks committees
have sought the input of hundreds of teachers,
topical experts, the general
public, educational researchers, cognitive
development experts, private and
home schoolers, and many other groups to try to find
ways to create a
comprehensive 'general' frameworks that 'work'.
These frameworks are
comprehensive, and very thorough, but are they
*perfectly* NPOV? Of course
not. They're general guides set up to help those
creating textbooks to build
content that is thought-provoking, informative, and
hopefully
well-presented.
OK, you've convinced me on that point.
[note: one of the great opportunities present to any
teacher who doesn't
agree with what's stated in a textbook is to use
that same textbook as a
foil in presenting alternative arguments. This is
called "teaching against
the text". It's a technique that's widely used, at
all academic levels]
...and Wikibooks should be very capable of that being
done. (I love it when my teachers do that)
LDan
Thus, per Jimmy's argument, I suggest we forge
ahead
with the best
frameworks out there, build good open source
textbooks, and trust that as a
part of that process, those who want to add modules
to counterbalance what
they see as bias in the frameworks can do so. This
gives everyone the best
of open source. On the one hand we end up with
*better* books that are based
on curriculum frameworks, as well as alternate
materials to be used in
addition to, instead of, or in tandem with the
approved curriculum framework
materials for those that want to point their
educational efforts in a
different direction that those proposed by one or
another state framework.
Sanford
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com