[WikiEN-l] NPOV facts (was: I like Plautus)

Thu Feb 26 14:20:51 UTC 2004

Bcorr used this puzzling phrase:

* "NPOV facts"

1. Excuse me, folks, but that is a blatant contradiction in terms. I see
the terms "POV" and "NPOV" misused quite a lot, and I think this misuse
betrays a fundamental misunderstanding.

NPOV = [[Neutral Point of View]]

The NPOV is a /policy/ about how to describe ideas or facts which are in
dispute. The term is /not/ a synonym for "objective truth". I can't
emphasize enough that it is a Conscious Repudiation of the notion that
Wikipedia has the capability or authority to determine what is really
true or good or beautiful or valuable.

The NPOV policy is, in short, an agreement to disagree.

Let's try to distinguish better between "objective truth" (which, of
course, each contributor always thinks their perfectly in command of!)
from "a neutral statement about a controversial matter".

2. People have continued to say, over the years, that if we dignify
fringe theories with any better treatment than utter condemnation,
they'll infect all the mainstream articles. They bring up [[flat earth]]
or [[Protocols of the Elders of Zion]] (PEZ) as examples. But we already
have a policy for these topics which works well and is stable.

Ideas held by a partisan minority are labelled "held by a minority", and
that minority is identified. Believers in a flat earth, by the way, are
so few that none has ever graced our hallowed halls. Lots of Arabs,
though, believe (or frequently hear their government-sponsored media
say) that the PEZ is authentic. The way we treat PEZ is to say that 

* Western historians dismiss PEZ as a fabrication, although several
Islamic nations officially support it.

The job of the NPOV is not to determine facts, but to describe
/opinions/ about reality without endorsing them. Let's get this
straight. Please.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed