[WikiEN-l] Back to the source no NPOV

Thu May 22 17:59:52 UTC 2003

> But NPOV is a _social_ concept, as opposed to an _epistemological_
> concept.  What I mean is that NPOV is defend by the agreement of
> supporters and opponents of any particular thing.

See:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_constructed_reality

Fred

> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:56:03 -0700
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Back to the source no NPOV
> 
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANPOV
> 
> I think there's some confusion popping up about NPOV, evidenced in
> part by Cunc's suggestion that NPOV is a Platonic ideal.  I think I
> know what he means, and I might agree with him in a way, but I think
> other people may be misunderstanding what he's saying.  (Or, perhaps I
> just disagree with Cunc.)
> 
> Geoff Burling wrote:
>> Well, ask anyone, & you'll most likely be told, ``I have a perfectly
>> NPOV. It's the rest of you who are biassed & don't know all of the
>> important facts." ;-)
> 
> If someone says that, then they are confusing NPOV with "objective" or
> "unbiases" or "true" or "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" or
> something like that.
> 
> But NPOV is a _social_ concept, as opposed to an _epistemological_
> concept.  What I mean is that NPOV is defend by the agreement of
> supporters and opponents of any particular thing.
> 
> If someone says that I'm not objective about, say, the crimes of
> the Soviet Union, then it's valid for me to respond: "Yes, I am.
> It is my opponent who is biased, who is trying to whitewash."
> In the wikipedia context, arguments about objectivity or truth
> would be endless.
> 
> But if someone says that a particular statement of mine is not NPOV,
> that's a different matter.  Lots of perfectly true and objective
> statements are not NPOV, because they would be disputed by people who
> are reasonable but mistaken.
> 
> As I wrote in the original statement of my idea of NPOV, "Of course,
> 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who
> will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement
> of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is
> agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular
> points."
> 
> What's really true or false enters into NPOV only indirectly.
> 
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l