Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Some Wikipedians have been using the terms NPOV and
POV as synonyms for
"objective" and "biased", respectively. This is an error, if I may
say
so.
Yes. When I made up the term "Neutral Point of View" I specifically
chose to avoid the term "objective", in part to clarify that this is a
term of art, a social concept designed to maximize the possibility of
harmonious work, rather than a purely epistemological concept like
'true' or 'objective'.
I think that, in a sense, NPOV writing is a _subset_ of objective
writing, i.e. it is writing so that a very wide variety of people can
give assent.
Some contributors, possibly Khranus among them, want
articles to reflect
REALITY and OBJECTIVE TRUTH. That is all well and good, for the 99% of
topics which are uncontroversial.
It is when contributors disagree about what is real and objectively
true, that we need to write from the Neutral Point of View. We must say,
for example, that some people believe dolphins are smarter than human
beings, while other people consider their intelligence to be much less
than that of humans.
We cannot and must not try to ANSWER the question, "Are dolphins
smarter?" with a yes or no answer. We can only describe the various
Points of View (POV) of researchers in the field, as well as science
fiction writers, drama writers, historical legends or anything else
which relates to the question.
Please, please understand that NPOV is not "objective truth".
I think this was all very well said.
NPOV is not abhorrent to the objective truth, nor opposed to it. It's
just narrower, more cautious, more inclusive.
--Jimbo