Wikipedia talk:No NPOV (historical)

message: I'm curious whether the author of this essay has reviewed the Wikipedia:NPOV page which explains what the term means for Wikipedia:
:For many people, the concept of NPOV is impossible and undesirable. The reasons underlying their position are many and varied. For some, NPOV is a myth that deludes both writers and readers. No NPOV thinkers may argue that it is better to state a point of view and be responsible for it rather than seeking to gain some sort of "objective" consensus which is destined to change later on. ....
This part seems to confuse the NPOV policy with objectivity.  To quote the section Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#The neutral point of view, "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in".  As a debate necessary involves multiple, conflicting points of view, to describe and characterize a debate would by definitino require stating all the competing points of views.
It is also helpful to remember that since Wikipedia is by nature open, a group activity, and confers quite a bit of anonymity to the editors, the concept of "responsible" becomes problematic.
:As an example, it has been argued that beauty is neither universal nor objective. Therefore, trying to impose, or at least create, a unified meaning for beauty is a hopeless task. Beauty does not derive from the object, but from the viewer. Thus, the number interpretations on what is beautiful depends on the number of viewers. To hold to the view that a "neutral" standard for beauty exists is seen as mistaken, and, such a standard would possibily inhibit the many voices and definitions that fall outside such a standard.
The argument simply shows that trying to present different criteria for beauty in an article on "Beauty" is proably misguided.  But the article can instead talk about, for example, what you're saying right now, that Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.  A neutral standard doesn't aim to create a "neutral definition for beauty", and as you argued, such a definition is problematic.  Instead it would strive to write the article on beauty in such a way that the entire issue about particular definitions of beauty can be avoided or mitigated.
:Certain issues (justice, beauty, criminality, among many others), states No NPOV, need direct reference to individual and group contexts. Markers such as national identity, gender, age, geography, religion, etc. mean "neutrality" is never more than a localized, temporary consensus, and is not a universal and permanent form of knowlege. Meaning does not derive from an object, meaning is subjectively assigned to objects by people.
And as the NPOV policy explains, this implies that for Wikipedia, instead of merely writing about meanings, you should always be sure to have the complete meaning-interpretor pairing explicit, in the form of citing sources.
:The No NPOV arguments raise direct concerns for the level and style of discourse and definition of "what is acceptable" with Wikipedia. For Wikipedians, and other people, who contend that people who adhere to No NPOV should think about removing themselves from Wikipedia since they do not share its "highest ideal," a contradiction appears. Wikipedia seems to justify its existance partly through the argument that a person need to agree any group's "highest ideal" inorder to speak. Wikipedians have often stated that the purpose of Wikipedia is to invite discussions. The asking for the departure of No NPOV adherents directly undermines that ideal. 
This seems to be an incorrect understanding of Wikipedia.  I fail to see where in wikipedia is there anything about "a person need to agree any group's 'highest ideal' in order to speak".  This is in fact contradicted by the mantra to be bold.  Any user can make edits to any (unprotected) article, even anonymously.  Of course, this means the next editor might make changes that the previous editor may disagree on.
:NPOV, takes as one of its premises that "neutral" means no side of an argument is omitted and all may be included. No NPOV questions such a stand by asking questions such as these: Who is to say when all arguments have been included? And if even one argument is excluded, is it still NPOV? How is everyone to decide what is to be included and what is to be excluded? Is not the very act of deciding the criteria for inclusion/exclusion "non-neutral"?
This is why it has been stated that the 5-pillars of Wikipedia do not exist independently, but must be understand in tandem with each other.  Generally the criteria for inclusion/exclusion is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which I will concede is itself a subject of continual debate.  Nevertheless, one implication is that points of view of the extreme minority can justifiably not be included since they would not be notable enough for inclusion per the verifiability critiera. 
:How does a group go aboout deciding whether "neutrality" has been achieved and once achieved would future changes risk be "un-neutral"?? Are such decisions made using a simple majority? What if the majority states one article is NPOV one day, but either the group in the majority or the views of the same majority, shift? 
This again seems to misunderstand NPOV.  It also shows the reason for Wikipedia to be an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  Articles will very well change as time progresses.  For example, imagine that we are back in the, say, 19th century.  Back at that point, the scientific consensus accepts Newtonian physics as correct.  If someone were to discuss Relativity:
# Either the view will be upheld by so few that it is not considered notable, and therefore would not be included in Wikipedia; or
# There are enough people espousing that view, it is possible in a Wikipedia article to characterize both sides of the debate.
Then of course, as we now know nowadays, Newtonian physics is not completely accurate and relativity is in fact the more accurate physics for our world.  In such case, the Wikipedia articles involved will of course be edited to reflect the newer understanding and the newer consensus in the scientific community.
:For example, if the majority of a population were to democratically decide that the earth is flat, are "the world is round" arguments to be excluded since they are considered to be far fetched?
No, but if there are not so far-fetched that there are enough people discussing and writing about round-world view, then it is justified to mention that alongside the flat-world view.  If it is really far-fetched, then it is probably not notable enough anyway to begin with.  Also keep in mind for example that there's always the option to, say, write an article about the "The World is Round Club", if this is a notable club.
:NPOV also seems to contend that the goal of each article is not to reflect a particular point of view on the topic, but to include various facts and opinions without showing bias towards or against any of them. No NPOV questions whether this is always possible. When mutually exclusive views are housed within the same "argument" the argument runs the risk of becoming self-contraditory.
This makes the fundamentally flawed assumption that the article is trying to advance any arguments in particular.  That is precisely why the NPOV policy exists:  characterize debates, but do not participate in one.  Since Wikipedia strives not to participate in the debate, it is a non-sequitar that arguments which are contradictory are all presented.  This is also why it is generally discouraged to write in the "(A) (but B says otherwise)..." style; instead of interleaving two viewpoints, one should present separate viewpoints separately.
:Or, the article maybe little more than a collection of mutually contradicting assertions that generate more confusion than it does understanding.
:As one example, some historians contend that on June 25, 1950, North Korean armed forces invaded South Korea, thereby begining between two separate nations a war intended to spread global communism. Yet, other historians (especially those in North Korea) may argue that the June 25, 1950 was an only extension of conflicts that had been going on for years earlier, that the war was a civil war between two domestic rivals in the same nation, and that UN forces were the foreign invaders who illegally sent troops into the Korean peninsula.
:When multiple mutually-exclusive points of view are housed within the same article and no "resolution" is allowed, says the No NPOV, then readers may very well be unable to acheive an understanding of the issues involved.
But if different historians can't achieve a unify agreement, what makes you think the mere editors of Wikipedia will do any better than the professionals?  Indeed, it seems a bit arrogant to presume we can do any better.  I would actually argue the opposite, that by presenting these different views, it gives the reader a wider scope on the issues involved, illustrating the nuances involved.
Keep in mind that the very reason something is being debated at all shows that different readers would end up with different "resolutions", so it seems logical to not provide a resolution, letting the reader come up with one as they so choose.  And who's to say the reader wants a resolution in the first place?  Maybe (s)he finds the debate more interesting and informative than any particular resolution thereof.
:Moreover, No NPOV argues that the real process in Wikipedia is not simply about inclusion. It is equally (or more) about exclusion.
That has always been true since the beginning.  For example, Wikipedia:Verifiability explains that writing an article about your next-door neighbor's dog is probably a bad idea.  To naively say Wikipedia is "simply about inclusion" would mean any article, be it on real or imaginary matters, or even possibly incoherent or non-sensical, can be included.
Also as a pratical matter, it should be note that any user with an account can create an article.  And even anonymous users can make edits, with the changes being immediately visible to the rest of the world.  Whereas the deleting of articles requires administrator intervention.  So clearly Wikipedia is operating on a mode that is heavily biased towards inclusion.  To have policies about exclusion only make sense to balance the inherent inclusivity.
----
Anyhow, thst's my current take on the issue.  Despite my disagreements on the essay's current content, I sincerely welcome the debate on this, especially since it helps to refine the arguments on both sides and helps to clarify the issues involved.  I do have to note however that as NPOV is one of Wikipedia's Five Pillars, I highly doubt that the policy will ever change.  Nonetheless, people used to believe the sun revolves around the earth, and Galileo was punished by the Inquisition for believing it's the other way round.  There's always the possibility that even the core policies may one day change or be revised.
24.19.184.243 06:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)