[WikiEN-l] Re: NPOV

Sat Nov 15 03:09:07 UTC 2003

Cunctator wrote:

>A brief summary of what I'd like to see as the policy:
>1. The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is to be neutral and authoritative.
>2. All claims made in Wikipedia should be confirmable by outside
>sources.
>3. For contentious issues, provide the reasoning behind the antagonists'
>contentions.
>4. Recognize that neutrality is impossible to achieve without
>omniscience.
>5. Eliminate ambiguity. (Make as strong claims as possible.)
>6. Celebrate terseness. (If another entry says the same thing, link to
>it. Don't say it twice if possible.)

This is all well-stated, but some of this goes beyond mere editorial 
policy and reaches the status of philosophy. Maybe we need a new 
word: "wikilosophy"?

Regarding the idea of simply "reporting things that really exist," 
Cunctator  wrote:

>Yes. Fortunately we can rely on the pool of perfectly accurate,
>non-propagandizing, value-judgmentless historical references to do so.
>
>Oops, they don't exist.

Actually, they do. For example, "Napoleon Bonaparte died on May 5, 
1821" is a statement whose accuracy no one seriously disputes, and it 
doesn't carry any particular propaganda or value judgments. Whether 
you believe that Napoleon was a great leader or a foolish despot, 
you're bound to agree on the date of his death.

Unfortunately, there are many other things about history and the 
world that are important enough to deserve inclusion in the Wikipedia 
that are _not_ this clear-cut. If the Wikipedia restricted itself 
simply to these sorts of undisputed facts, it wouldn't be a very 
interesting encyclopedia.
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------