Talk:Neutral point of view

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


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)

meaning of synthesized knowledge?[edit]

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)

and other projects?[edit]

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)

Is the absence of NPOV policy at Wikiversity deliberate or by omission? LeadSongDog 18:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
To what extent does ‘strict’ indicate adherence to the ‘original formulation’? Humanengr (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


I don't call WB's NPOV policy strict when compared to WP and WN. Kayau (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Its less strict statements are strictly enforced. :-p --Nemo 14:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


See Meta:Babel#Meta:Policies_and_guidelines. --Nemo 10:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

From [for WhatAmIDoing][edit]

Heh, the word which first caught my eye, WhatAmIDoing... That substantially alters the meaning of the sentence. examples:

He included a detracting point of view.
He included a detraction from the point of view.

The former is active voice, the latter is passive. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 16:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that difference has nothing to do with the verb (which is "included" in both sentences), and therefore it has nothing to do with active or passive verbs.
The change I made is purely grammar. The (corrected) phrase in question is "their missions are best served not by advancing or detracting from particular points of view". You need the word from because advancing and detracting are the objects of the preposition (gerunds), not adjectives modifying the noun phrase point of view (participles).
The phrases are grouped like like this:
[their missions] [are best served not] [by advancing or detracting] [from particular points of view].
WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I would have to respectfully disagree. I believe the "points of view" are on "any given subject" in the original sentence, which is the object of their mission. (I agree I was incorrect in the use of voice, above.) - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 20:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, I don't know. "He included a detraction from the point of view [...] with zombies" passes the Internet grammar meme-test-de-jour. :-P --Brian McNeil / talk 20:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Less-flippantly, I suspect the issue is not to put the stops all-awry. That the differing readings of the text are possible, puts it a distinct disadvantage within policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you include the final phrase:
[their missions] [are best served not] [by advancing or detracting] [from particular points of view] [on any given subject].
Detracting must be followed by the word from. Look it up if you need to: every example includes the word from. You can't detract something; you can only detract from something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Grammatical and typographical correction[edit]

I've fixed the bad grammar (you can't detract a point of view), and the inconsistent spacing of the em dash (already fixed by someone else. "Of course" is not a standard tone for a formal document like this.

Let us have no more reverting of these obvious fixes. If editors believe there's a problem, please raise it here. Tony (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the phrase might be recast as 'supporting or opposing particular points of view', which I suspect was the original intent. One cannot advance from a point of view, so your argument is split.
Although I agree with your other edits, I do not believe you should be using the imperative voice. If you believe there is a problem with the formulation, you might wish to raise it here before editing a wiki page which has wide potential effects. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 15:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
No. Let's get the facts right. The version you've just damaged, again, is this:

"Editors are expected to approximate NPOV to the best of their ability and welcome improvements that have been brought by others in good faith".

The version you've inserted is this:

"One is expected to approximate NPOV to the best of one's ability and welcome improvements brought by others in good faith".

Your edit-summary says: "I believe the more generic 'One' includes readers and editors. I do not see casting the sentence to passive improves the reading." First, why would the intended meaning ever have included readers? Readers approximating NPOV? Let's be reasonable. Second, "one" and "one's" is pretty clunky in this context—the very opposite of plain English. Third, your replacement included the same two instances of passive voice, rather than "casting the sentence to passive". And your comment here about imperative voice is puzzling; there's no imperative in the text at issue. This is getting tiresome. If you're going to persist, we'll need to take higher action. Your time and mine is much better spent doing more productive things. Tony (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I assumed you (Tony1) and Graham87 were separate people. I did not alter anything you edited other than the first reversion. (I also encouraged the person who re-added the 'from' to discuss here, but refrained from a second reversion though I still think it alters the meaning.) Those are also facts.
The imperative voice was used by you, telling me what to do and not to do, on this page. Please don't do that; it engenders hostility and makes it difficult to believe good faith is assumed by you. I am intrigued by your threat to take higher action; pray, what form would that take? A court in Trenton, NJ? - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 16:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Tony1 and Graham87 are different people, and both high;y experienced editors at the English Wikipedia. They (and I) both believe that you are wrong. Is English perhaps not your native language?
"One" in English is only used in very formal statements. I prefer avoiding it. If you want to include non-editors, you could use more inclusive terms like users or contributors.
For myself, the only change I would make is changing ability to the plural. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I am, unfortunately in my opinion, only fluent in English, although undoubtedly not exactly the same dialect as yours. At least, I am advancing from that point of view on a given subject. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 23:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)