[WikiEN-l] Re: Proposed policy on biographies: input sought

Wed Dec 21 19:18:38 UTC 2005

slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

>But I'd like to add that it may be misleading to say that NPOV is the
>number one policy on the site. And please don't everyone throw up your
>hands in horror. The NPOV and NOR policies work together, but if one
>of them has to be prioritized, I would argue that it's NOR. For
>example, supposing a well-known nun and aid worker dies. All she had
>ever done was help people in developing countries and we have
>countless newspaper articles about that. Let's suppose we can't find a
>single word of criticism about her, and let's further suppose she
>worked independently and not for any of the usual aid agencies that
>are often criticized.
>
>Because lots of editors focus on the centrality of NPOV, they feel
>they have to include a criticism from somewhere, anywhere, and you end
>up with an article that reads like this: "Jane Doe (born 1938) was a
>Roman Catholic nun and aid worker, described by the New York Times as
>'the embodiment of Christ on earth.' The Roman Catholic church has
>been heavily criticized for the willingness of its followers to
>interfere in the affairs of the developing world, according to
>Militant Magazine."
>
>It may be a form of NPOV, but it's poor writing and a violation of
>NOR, because it's putting together a synthesis of published material
>in a novel way in order to build a case.
>
>Based on examples like this, I argue that, although NPOV and NOR are
>inseparable, when push comes to shove, NOR is actually prioritized. Or
>perhaps more accurately, NPOV is interpreted in a way that prioritizes
>NOR. We publish only what other reputable/credible publications have
>published (NOR) and we try to reflect the same mix of positive and
>negative published material (NPOV), but in so doing, we must be
>careful to stick closely to the parameters of the subject matter (NOR)
>and not attempt to build a case of our own (NOR).
>
If I were to priorize these two policies I would come to the opposite 
conclusion.  Trying to find material to offset what you consider to be 
an article that is not neutral enough may be in violation of NOR.  If 
Sister Jane is busy humbly doing her own good works in a developing 
community why should we put on her back the burden of justifying the 
efforts of a global organization in which women have negligible policy 
making power?  Why would we need to open up the entire debate on the 
significance and value of "Opus Dei"?  The article is about Sister Jane, 
not the whole damn Catholic Church.

There is nothing in NPOV saying that you *must* find critical material.  
Feeling that abligation would itself be a violation of NPOV.  NPOV 
synthesizes a position between existing POVs.  At the moment that it is 
written every article is NPOV no matter what it says.  This momentary 
situation will change very rapidly when the first person to see it says 
that it's bullshit.  If every article that we find about Sister Jane is 
favorable then it follows that the NPOV is favorable.

Ec