User talk:Bjornar/BPOV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article of course is at its very beginning, and at the time of writing very crudely knit together. After some polishing around the corners it may begin to look like something that can actually be used, as right now it is only an idea, although very simple, has a very clear meaning.--Bjornar 18:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] facts ain't neutral

good points bjornar and i do like bpov to npov. in particular, your point about how fruitless it is to takes "facts" from cnn or knca and then present them as if they were "neutral" is a good one. each author of a fact has an agenda, and to simply cite facts as if they were "true" is to obscure and hide the pre-existing agenda of the author. this process, which is very much how many folks in the US process info, makes it MORE difficult for readers to decipher the agenda of the author since it is hidden from view.

also, in the US most folks are trained during school to "look for the facts." the belief is that once you acquire facts, understanding follows. i have long believed that this is a completely backwards way to better understand the world around us. it is too simplistic to state that understanding arises from the acquisition of facts. to understand the world better we all need to analyze/deconstruct the assumptions and views of the authors, NOT their "facts." that is to say, the universe is filled with a functionally infinite number of facts. if 100 people were asked to describe the "facts" of an identical room, you would have 100 different descriptions and lists of "facts". if a person worked in a furniture store, he or she might begin the list of facts with items about furniture. a window maker would focus on windows, not furniture, etc etc etc. the point is, the reality is identitical for each person, but the particular "facts" selected AND "facts" not selected differ according to the values/experiences of each person.

when viewing nk, many people seek only particular facts, those facts that confirm pre-existing preferences and understandings are preferred to those facts that run counter to their beliefs.

so, in wikipedia, to simply have people give "facts" or "factoids" or bits of info is meaningless until the views/agendas of the authors are fully understood. actually, i have quite a bit to say since i find this topic to be interesting and your arguments for bpov are as well, but i will wrap it up here. thanks. Hongkyongnae 18:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)