[WikiEN-l] NPOV policy

Thu Jul 15 15:00:54 UTC 2004

steven l. rubenstein wrote

> For what it is worth, I
> think we can explain it in a simpler and more direct way.
> 1) NPOV often means multiple points of view.  This means providing not
only
> the points of view of different groups today, but different groups in the
past.
> 2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  One important task for articles is to
> explain things.  In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation
> encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and
> practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and
> took shape.

I note that Steven is in an academic department where these points will be
part of the environment.  There are some standard approaches in the
humanities to which it is well to pay attention.  Still, it won't do, from
WP's point of view, to be either confused or naive about the issues.  There
are several  that occur to me.

1. NPOV without history is perfectly OK, in some cases.  Take an example
that is fairly uncontentious.  The legal system in Scotland differs from
that in England, for historical reasons.  One can write about the legal
differences in buying a house, north or south of the Border, without
addressing the issue of why those are there.  NPOV is quite possible without
going into the historical side of English common law.

2. History as can of worms.  I'm sure people know what I mean.  An example
that occurs to me is discussion of the Korean minority in Japan.

3. If it is really meant that writing from an ahistorical point of view is
going to be labelled POV, then this is going to be used in polemics, without
a doubt.  It is not a simple matter to say what the historical context is of
any one issue -  certainly not clear-cut, and worrying excessively about
this also goes against good habits of crisp writing.

4. The historical point of view can itself be used as a stick to beat the
very idea of NPOV. Any competent Hegelian or Marxist can write the script
for doing this.

Charles