Talk:Neutral point of view

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Out of curiosity, isn’t a Neutral Point of View policy technically flawed since no perspective can be neutral? I mean, the very meaning of a ‘point of view’ insinuates that there is someone viewing it, which inherently incorporates biases. Nothing seems able to be completely objective or neutral; it is just accepted via consensus, convention or presumption. After all, saying something as trivial as ‘2 + 1 = 3’ imparts an ordinal prejudice (as opposed to ‘1 + 2 = 3’).

I assume one would retort that the aim is to achieve as neutral a point of view as possible, which is fine except it seems flawed (and somewhat cruel) to make an unobtainable ideal into an adamant and invulnerable policy. I guess at this point someone would tactfully point out that I’m just a raving lunatic, which seems about right. Don’t pay me too much heed, just trying to stir things up philosophically and metaphysically :P --Relex 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No one has commented here yet? Sort of amazing.

This relates closely to arguments on certain listservs right now about how "objectivity is wrong when it provides equal weight to questionable/flawed information/viewpoints.

To which, as a long-time reporter, I say: rubbish.

Don't present a lie as the truth if you can prove it to be a lie. But I often tell folks, "Sometimes, the worst thing I can do to people is quote them accurately." To leave OUT their perspective rather than point out the lie is playing to the other side's game.

NPOV is my new favorite acronym. I hope affiliated Wikinews/media sites do offer the opportunity for MPOV -and I think Liquid Threads or what have you are crucial, to bring the style of comment posting to conformity with blogs, newsgroups, etc. - ease of use, wide interest, some basic, non-heavy-handed rules of engagement.

Huzzah! Barney Lerten - Bend, Oregon

Barney, it's a waste of time to debate a sacred text. The admonition that NPOV is non-negotiable and that, as one of the Foundation issues, "People who strongly disagree with them sometimes end up leaving the project" kinda scares away any serious discussion of the subject.

I've found other sites where the topic of neutral writing is discussed more openly (although the subject is not so strictly framed in terms of NPOV elsewhere), so it's kind of pointless to try and discuss it here, where doing so might get one banned as a subversive. — DV 08:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] meaning of synthesized knowledge?

Hello, I looked for a interpretation or explanation of Jimbo Wales meaningful concept synthesized knowledge. I think it is helpfull to concretize or to substantiate this. Or can someone set a link to a more detailed text? Many thanks in advance -- Thomas@de 10:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] and other projects?

Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wikinews have a strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. I understand that all Wikipedia projects must have a strict NPOV policy. Wikipedia is not allowed to take an official position about controversial political issues (e.g. what is the vote to be preferred in an election?), Wiktionary is not allowed to take an official position about controversial linguistic issues (e.g. should Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian be considered as separate languages or as a single language?), etc. I suggest a change from Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wikinews to All Wikimedia projects. Or do I miss something? Lmaltier 12:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)