Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

User pages?

Should user pages be NPOV? Cos my way of looking at it is they are not part of the encyclopedia itself. I think this is one of the main underlying issues at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin and as far as I can tell it doesn't say anywhere in this article that they have to be NPOV - rst20xx 14:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Only the following namespaces need to be NPOV: the article namespace; the category namespace; the portal namespace; the template namespace. The point with the userboxes is completely different. Users are free to describe themselves on their userpages as they see fit. But that shouldn't be by the way of userboxes. All this has gotten out of hand. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. These userboxes don't help the encyclopaedia in any way, shape or form. It's quite ridiculous that within a week and a half of forming WikiProject Userboxes is the second largest WikiProject by number of participants. The principle at had is WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA. It is not a community and not a talking shop. If that's what some users want, I suggest they find another website to do that in, jguk 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Well why do Userboxes have to conform to the NPOV policy? After all, they're not gonna appear on anywhere apart from users' pages, which are NPOV in themselves. And it just makes it easier for the user than having to write their views on their user pages, which is what would happen otherwise. rst20xx 10:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of text from a scientific viewpoint

Currently (under "Undue weight") the policy says:

If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties

I'd like to amend that, or add a bit, to clarify this from the scientific perspective, which should say ...views in proportion to their representation in the scientific literature, among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. William M. Connolley 23:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

William, I know we haven't always seen eye to eye, but I think you've highlighted an important area that requires clarification. However, I think the qualification depends on context, that being whether an artice is a general article, or an article about the minority viewpoint.
I agree that an article on, for example, the Big Bang, should not detail minority views. But it should at least acknowledge that there are minority views, and link to an article where they may be described. And then an article describing a minority view, by definition, would detail that minority view, but also acknowledge that there is a "mainstream" view.
I've described this a bit more fully earlier on this page, see
It might also be worth clarifying what is meant by "the scientific literature". For example, the The NASA Astrophysics Data System appears to be an excellent source for citations, including peer-reviewed papers, books, conference records and Arxiv pre-prints.
So perhaps the amendment should read something like this: ".. general articles should present competing views in proportion to their representation in the scientific literature, among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. However, an articles about a specific viewpoint, whether a mainstream or minority view, need not detail other views, but should acknowledge that other views exist.
--Iantresman 00:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree the primary article focus should be the topic, NOT opposing points of view, complaints, protests, or disagreements about the topic. When I read an article on nuclear power, or the Big Bang, or communism, I want to learn about THAT -- the topic. I don't want to read a dozen opposition opinions masquerading under "some have said...".
Furthermore I agree with the statement in "Article point of view vs general Neutral point of view", that the Intelligent Design article is one of the worst examples. It is an embarrasment to the process. It's like a Usenet discussion more than an encyclopedia article. It clearly illustrates the problem with NPOV as currently worded. NPOV as worded encourages pro/con positions within what should be a primarily factual article. NPOV should instead repeatedly emphasize the prime directive is to factually describe the topic. Related controversy or opposing opinions can be briefly mentioned (if appropriate) but should be broken out to a separate article if warranted.
Maybe we'll end up with 50% of articles having a linked "controvery" article. However that's better than diluting what should be a factual presentation of the topic with a pro/con debate. Joema 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Would these changes not embed the scientific POV in the NPOV policy, or worse, imply that the scientific POV is neutral? I know that is an ongoing bone of contention at WP.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I may have been a bit misunderstood here. I'm not proposing any change in how minority views are represented at all, or trying to embed the scientific POV. What I'm trying to do is to clarify *how* the scientific view/balance should be determined: that it comes primarily from the scientific literature, and only after that from the views of experts (in fact it would be pretty weird if the views of experts disagree, since they write the literature). William M. Connolley 09:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

Don't people think that we should also seek advices with regard to scientific content in WP from experts in standard encyclopedia -- there must be some of them working for WP. The point is that there seems to exist a consensus that Wikipedia should as much as possible have the high standard of an encyclopedia. Therefore, let us see what is normally expected from an encyclopedia at this level. --Lumiere 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue_weight

what about when people disagree about what the majority view is? Sam Spade 15:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This happens (see the climate change wars; and there are probably other examples). This is one reason I'd like to focus on literature rather than experts: in controversial areas, it can happen that minority view "experts" are much noisier than the quieter majority. That isn't a problem with the literature. William M. Connolley 16:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

Also, I have seen a couple of times that individuals will give undue weight to individual opinions on Web pages, or opinions in newspapers, over peer-reviewed articles. It would be like me, publishing my views about the Einstein' theory of relativity (say) on my Web site (along with some really lofty sounding title), and then having that opinion quoted on the Relativity page by a Wikipedia editor. I have no expertise on relativity, so why should my opinion have equal standing with experts in the field? Often, there is no discernment of legitimate sources. Should there be any statements about the hierarchy or the prima facia validity of a source? SteveMc 23:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, it would appear that peer-reviewed articles should be given more weight than non-peer-reviewed scientific articles, which in turn should be given more than non-published articles. In the vast majority of cases, I am sure this is accurate. But perhaps it is worth noting the following (note that I don't think that any of these are peer-reviewed):
--Iantresman 12:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Relying on the literature isn't perfect, but its the best we've got. Of your refs... the first is medicine-only & is an opinion essay; the second I really don't understand (it appears to be suggesting that disagreeing with the MMR alarmists was a bad idea, something I strongly dispute); the third is complaining the Intelligent Design isn't considered science. Errrrmmm... makes me keener than ever on the literature! William M. Connolley 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Have a look at this: Talk:Fascism_and_ideology#Libertarian_theories_about_fascism. Its what inspired me to ask this question, and I think it underscores the issue rather well. Sam Spade 09:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Don't people think that we should also seek advices with regard to scientific content in WP from experts in standard encyclopedia -- there must be some of them working for WP. The point is that there seems to exist a consensus that Wikipedia should as much as possible have the high standard of an encyclopedia. Therefore, let us see what is normally expected from an encyclopedia at this level. --Lumiere 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Shortcut does not work...

The shortcut WP:NPOVUW (and likely all shortcuts to labeled sections) does not seem to work, as labels are not recognized by redirection. Anything we can or should do?--Stephan Schulz 16:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV ab initio, or via evolution?

Should the NPOV policy explanation contain a clear statement to the effect that NPOV is supposed to be achieved beginning with the initial posting, not later through ping-ponging of opposing POVs over many months or years of fighting? That if it is not substantially NPOV as a new page, it is a candidate for speedy deletion?

In other words, that a new article is expected to be substantially NPOV in its first posting, not a POV soapbox awaiting other editors to try to tone it down or add counter views, perhaps only after edit wars on every syllable.

And that every edit is expected to not contribute further to that article's current POV? So if an article gets off NPOV kilter and is substantially one-sided, then it is the responsibilty of every editor thereafter to steer that article back toward a balanced view, fairly stated, of the matter. Thus additional edits that increase that POV are inappropriate and are subject to summary reversion on the grounds of piling on additional POV? --StanZegel (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that an article can be expected to be wholly NPOV from the start. Even the best of us can slip in comments that are POV without knowing it. On the other hand, we have every right to expect an editor who creates a new article will at least try to balance things as best as possible from the very start. In some cases, articles seem to have been created for the purpose of avoiding balancing points of view, making it hard for those who disagree to keep track of all the POV edits, extend the discussion across multiple talk pages and the like. Perhaps we can encourage someone who notices this behavior to set an NPOV flag and/or a merger proposal flag and then to solicit an admin other then themselves to decide if the new article is in good faith. I think in that situation, we would expect the admin to decide the matter and act according to his/her findings. --CTSWyneken 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

One line summary

I notice that someone added a one-line summary which was subsequently removed. Now, two summaries in purple boxes is definitely redundant, but I would argue that the version proposed (All Wikipedia articles must be neutral; they may not advocate or denigrate anything or any one.) is a lot clearer than the one currently there (Articles, including reader-facing templates, categories and portals, should be written from a Neutral Point of View.). It's quite redundant to use terms like "neutral point of view" in a summary, when the page title itself contains them, so any summary should seek to explain what that actually means and I think the version proposed did a fairly good job of that.

In short: How can we improve the summary so it actually explains in a nutshell what this policy is about? Stevage 11:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cts: propose (here) a merger of the two, taking the best of both. A quick first attempt by me:
All Wikipedia articles must be neutral; they may not advocate or denigrate anything or any one. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. Harald88 13:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, anyone? Harald88 18:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I like it. Particularly the fact it avoids the phrase "neutral point of view" which is redundant and self-referential. I'll add it. Stevage 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what policy you are writing, but it is not called NPOV. The real policy has always stated that articles should represent views fairly and without bias. Bensaccount 18:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Language style question

This question arises at Talk:Cold_fusion#RfC towards the end of that rather lengthy session. Apologies if its answered already... if so, please point me to that.

What is the appropriate language for referring to something where that thing is substantially doubtful? Accepting (for the moment) that Cold Fusion is substantially doubted, should the CF article start:

Cold fusion is the name for a nuclear fusion reaction that occurs well below the temperature required for thermonuclear reactions...

or should it start

Cold fusion is the name for a claimed nuclear fusion reaction that would occur well below the temperature required for thermonuclear reactions...

I prefer the latter, on the grounds that it doesn't concede the existence of the thing, which the first version does, at least implicitly. Others point out that Loch Ness Monster for example appears to use the former format. William M. Connolley 19:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

I would counter that simply stating "X is the name for Y" does not imply that X or Y exist. It provides a definition of the term, nothing more. Whether or not the what the term refers to exists or is a real phenomenon is a separate question (which is discussed at length in the rest of those articles). Very few, if any, pages on controversial topics use this kind of language in their opening sentence. ObsidianOrder 19:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
For purposes of comparison, here's a couple examples from some articles on things whose existence is rejected by a majority (or, in the second case, perhaps a near-majority) of the developed world population (I omit extra links for ease of reading):
  • Vishnu (IAST viṣṇu, Devanagari विष्णु, with honorific Shri Vishnu; śrī viṣṇu, श्रीविष्णु ), is a form of God, to whom many Hindus pray.
  • Jesus, also known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, is the central figure of Christianity,
  • Extra-sensory perception, or ESP, is the name given to any ability to acquire information by means other than the five canonical senses...
  • Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which work is done with an unknown energy source. Perpetual motion machines (the Latin term perpetuum mobile is not uncommon) are a class of hypothetical machines which would produce useful energy in a way which would violate the established laws of physics.
The last, perhaps the most directly analogous, does use the word "hypothetical" (as does polywater). I looked at a few examples from category:Pseudoscience, and, for example, Psi ball uses "claimed". I'd say that polywater and perpetual motion are rejected by a greater majority of scientists than cold fusion is. I'd say either would be fine. -- Pakaran 20:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm... interesting. In the Jesus case, I'd be happy with that, because he *is* the central figure, independent of (say) his historical existence. For perp motion use of hypothetical is probably stronger than the "claimed" caveat, because it directly implies that they are *only* hypothetical and not real. I hope others will comment too. William M. Connolley 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
What about something that attributes the POV? "Cold fusion is a process in which, according to a minority of physicists, nuclear reactions occur..." -- Pakaran 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Overuse of template

Has anyone else noticed this template being used when inappropriate? I am speaking specifically of people who place the template on articles because their proposed edits (usually highly POV, as in Abortion; or completely unsupported by any references, as in Bigfoot) are unable to gain consensus or support. I have seen this on a number of articles which I have on my watchlist precisely because they are vandal magnets and troll magnets, and it may be that my perception is skewed, but it looks like this template is being used to violate WP:Point more often. Would it be in order to add some kind of section on when not to place the template on the NPOV page? KillerChihuahua?!? 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV vs. Honesty (aka NPOV is evil)

Here's my take on this. NPOV is evil, because it encourages dishonest (did I say pretentious?) behaviour in the name of it. Nobody can and should honestly understand POVs different than their own (unless they're changing their mind, or unsettled, or are just pretending to because that's a cultural norm of their precious "community"). There is no such thing as an unbiased text because judging a text as unbiased means stating an opinion. (now a little game, replace "unbiased" with "absolutely objective" and "stating an opinion" with "being subjective", what do you get?)

Wikipedia is doomed to be a dry repository of (useful, because it's organized and free) facts, and ruled by pretentious idiots who constantly indulge in revert wars by the name of their (surprise surprise) objective! NPOV/non-NPOV judgements of articles. (did I say objective? I meant absolutely, undisputedly objective)

A neutral point of view is impossible (and unhealthy) just like absolute objectivity, don't delude yourselves. --80.230.233.101 22:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This common objection reflects a misunderstanding of the neutrality policy. NPOV does not say there is absolute objectivity. The idea behind NPOV is not to achieve an ideal state of objectivity but rather that where bias can be detected, it can also be eliminated. Bensaccount 00:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well said. In other words, what counts is achieving a consensus. Banno 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you bots? do you ever think for yourselves? Yeah I RTFA. What I'm saying is "Achieving a consensus" is a disguised wikisynonym for "ideal groupthink objectivity". It is not an honest behaviour on the individual level, it is a utopian ideal of relativistic political correctness, mixed with heavy pretentiousness.
Multiple points of view, Article point of view, Scientific point of view etc. are much more honest (and useful for the reader because they expose emotional content and prejudices) IMO because the writer can honestly identify and agree with his/her prose. And many articles in wikipedia already use them on a de-facto basis (APOV on top with criticism sections, SPOV already on science articles, disambiguation for different viewpoints etc.).
In practice, the utopian "appeal for NPOV" is mostly used as a rhetorical device by partisans and ArbCom members, and is evil. Thus should be replaced with something better (as a formal policy). --80.230.233.101 12:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikiinfo has POV forks. You might like it. Deltabeignet 13:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware of Fred Bauder's Wikiinfo for a number of years. But I'm just letting you all know that NPOV is an attempt for absolute objectivity - Though not absolute objectivity over reality (Which has failed and popularly rejected - totaly uncool). It is the new, hip, reincarnation, An attempt for an absolute objectivity over the presentation of different viewpoints! how silly! --80.230.233.101 14:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be arguing in favour of bias...what good could possibly come of that? Bensaccount 16:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Honesty is good. Well and honestly written, informed points of views by intelligent people are enlightening and eye opening, and are the jewels I occasionly find in this project. I think people have been been deluded by the apparent novelty of the "NPOV" buzzword and came to associate it with the cool, new viewpoints they discovered on this website and never heard of elsewhere. However, I have always felt that NPOV is too absolute and restrictive and indeed it is!
Presenting the majority view as dominant and minority views (what's the precentage of scientists in the population?) as "esoteric" is blatant populist bias and may at times degrade an extreme appeal to stupidity. --80.230.233.101 18:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I've always found it a pleasure to meet actual expert trolls. You folks could probably take over the world if you ever got serious about it. :-) Have fun! Kim Bruning 22:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That might work if each article only had one author. NPOV and consensus-based policy developed to manage the anyone-can-edit medium. What you say is lovely and idealistic, but do you have any idea about how to get this medium to work that way?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 08:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't claim I have a reasonable alternative for NPOV, for now. (am I morally responsible to have one?) I'm just pointing out it's inherently flawed. (see below for more) --80.230.233.101 09:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thus is the fate of all human endeavour. Which is to say, you haven't said anything beyond the obvious if that's all you have to offer. Saxifrage 09:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll say it. I'm working on it. Yes, I'm working on it. I'm doing my best, really. --80.230.233.101 09:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Saxifrage here. We all know the policy is not perfect, but nothing better has been proposed, though many, many have tried. It just works out well to produce an article with the least bias and present the most useful facts. We don't use it because it's ideal we use it because pragmatically it's the best available. Large amounts of experience in this project have shown it to be more successful in practice than all the other proposals. - Taxman Talk 17:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy guides you towards writing a biased article

This might seem unreasonable. But it's true. read:

The policy gives guidelines for the presentation of different viewpoints. For example: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views", but will not explain you why you should do that (is this a natural thing to do?), and also does not tell you (but you can easily figure that out yourself) that by doing that you are giving more weight to the popular view, ie you are applying a conscious bias to your article. How sad.

Another way to put it is that the NPOV policy defines a synthetic ("absolute") measure for fairness (popular vs. minority length). However, by applying this measure it extracts a hidden, biased point of view which states that the minority point of view is somewhat less important, because less is written about it.

(Kim, your favorite "troll" is having fun, enjoy! BTW, If you've actually read the above you might notice that there are real, reasonable arguments behind this, please criticise the arguments, not me) --80.230.233.101 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sir, there are people who agree with you on alternate encyclopedia projects that have forked from this one. So making your statement here is like walking into the emacs usenet group and claiming that vi is superior *ducks and runs*.
I admit I could be wrong about you of course. If you like, drop by on irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia, or contact me on my user talk . Kim Bruning 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll make it short and clear: I believe that criticising the policies shouldn't be a taboo on this project. However, from some (mysterious) reason, some participants feel the opposite. And that's just sad. Wikipedia is much more than its policies. --80.230.233.101 09:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Well said, thats partly why why I voted against Kim as an arbitrator. Bensaccount 16:00, 14 January 2006
Eh? Well, certainly I don't mind discussing wikipedia policy. The thing is, this particular discussion has been done to death. The conclusion was a fork, with Wikipedia using NPOV, and Wikinfo using the Sympathetic Point Of View. I'm sure the discussions must still be on the wiki. Try to see if you can find back more about the reasoning on both sides, either directly on the wiki or on google. If you can't find anything, I'll come help you look. :-) Note that NPOV happens to be a foundation issue, so it is nearly (but not entirely) impossible to change. Kim Bruning 16:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't care --80.230.233.101 10:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming my suspicions. Have a nice I don't care too! Thanks for trolling, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Kim Bruning 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "nonbias policy" is less fair than you might think

(A similar criticism to the one above. Conveyed by an analogy)

Imagine a court situation: An individual vs. a major corporation. The sides are invited for a testimony. According to NPOV's concept of "fairness", "minority views [should not be given] as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". The individual is allotted 10 minutes for her testimony (one person - minority view). The corporation is given an hour (the corporation has 20,000 employees - major view). Wikipedia's current "neutral point of view" formulation claims this is fair and neutral. --80.230.233.101 09:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I do think NPOV is flawed, but this isn't exactly how. NPOV is all about fairly representing views. It's subjective but it works. The views get represented fairly, and if they aren't represented fairly you can evoke NPOV. The flaw, in my opinion, is that having all views fairly represented does not give a neutral article. It prioritizes views over facts. My solution is Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions. Bensaccount 17:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
What I tried to criticise by the analogy is the specific idea of "Undue weight" which is one of the most horrifyingly unfair and biased principles I can imagine. If that's not clear to you why, there's probably not much I can do. --80.230.233.101 19:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Take the example of global warming, which is exactly the kind of topic which the "Undue weight" principle was created to handle. The vast majority of qualified people hold that global warming is a documented phenomenon, while a vast minority dispute this. The current US media way of handling this, as observed through many article including in the NYT, is to present both sides with equal space. However, this misleads the reader into believing that both sides have just as much credibility and standing as the other, when in fact the bulk of the scientific community and literature disagrees with that tiny segment. Your proposal would entrench this flawed reporting method in this encyclopedia.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 06:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to show a conceptual unfairness. Not avoid practical problems. I did not propose anything here. See formulation below. --80.230.233.101 09:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The criticism I levelled is a conceptual, not practical, issue with your proposal.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 12:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I was not being clear at all: I meant that "competing views" are given the same space. please see the formulation below for how it works. --80.230.233.101 21:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
That's still a conceptual problem: you say we should include all views with equal space. Great, Wikipedia isn't paper and we can actually store all that without too much difficulty (i.e., it's not a practical problem). However, should we include all viewpoints? The answer provided by the community is "No", because many views are widely considered by those who are qualified to judge to be largly bunk. For instance, no matter how good the argument is, Nietsche's view that God does not exist should not occupy equal space in God as every other viewpoint. However, it should be included in an amount of space and in a degree of detail that is equal to its relevance and general level of support within the philosophical and theological communities (i.e., experts).
You actually do seem to be advocating this already when you say arguments should be judge on their quality and logic for whether they should be included. However, what is clear and logical to one person is not necessarily to another (because we're not flawless computers) and we are biased to believe that we are correct (because we're not flawless computers). So, NPOV is the community's answer to this problem.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. I agree that wikipedia shouldn't be a "waste dump" for fringe/bunk viewpoints. The problem is that this type of filtering is both an appeal to authority and appeal to popularity, thus far from my perception of "neutrality". The "N" in NPOV is exceptionally misleading in this matter: What you are suggesting is that "write from a neutral point of view" is a euphemism for "present viewpoints that seem acceptable to wikipedia's editors, in a style they agree about", and "minority view" a euphemism for "a view rejected by wikipedia's editors". I think that in the name of honesty, the policy should reflect that; but to say that doing that is in any way "fair" towards the viewpoints is simply ridiculous.
You seem to be ignoring me every time I say the word "experts". When "write from a neutral point of view" is just an euphemism for "present viewpoints that seem acceptable to wikipedia's editors", that's called bias and we have ways of dealing with that. No, a good editor (who doesn't get in trouble for bias) is one who reports on what is the consensus among experts. Do you see now why I believe your complaint is missing the point entirely, given this?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 11:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The original (IMO way-out-of-this-world utopianist idealism) idea by Jimbo and Larry (see also a 2002 discussion with a so-called "troll" named 24) was that "eventually" "The Truth" will come out, as wikipedia's editorial staff asymptotically reaches toward 99.999% of earth's population (and peace prevails earth, and everyone's happy etc.). They did not predict the real life situation of "POV pushers" constantly reverting articles and experts being expelled by herds of know-nothing wikifiddlers. This policy is way outdated and simplistic. An encyclopedia is not an experiment in confirming someone's philosophical urges. An encyclopedia should first educate about the subject (and be fair towards it while presenting it), then present relevant views about it, In whatever manner the editors choose to.
(I feel uneasy about posting in this page. I was warned by some administrator to be blocked "for not being NPOV" - on a talk page!, ironically enough. I feel I have a lot to say about this subject, so maybe we can move to another page?) --84.228.107.148 16:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV displays a peculiar preoccupation with the quantification of viewpoints

Does quantifying the holders of an opinion always matter? It might be informative, sometimes. For example: if you're presenting results from a survey (backed by statistical measurements) or writing about a cultural topic (that deals with how people feel about different issues). At other times, presenting an opinion primarily with its quantification (e.g "most people believe..") becomes simply a biased appeal to popularity, or conversely, an appeal to unpopularity.

Furthermore, NPOV policy officialy recommends you to use vague, dubiously informative and unscientific, quantifications for the popularity of opinions, for example: "Some people believe..", "Most people believe..", etc. You might say these vague quantifications are better than nothing. However, an important question should not be overlooked: Is this a responsible recommendation for an official policy of an encyclopedia? --80.230.233.101 18:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You may be focusing on that from the original formulation at the top, but as it is applied, "most people believe" and it's ilk violate another of Wikipedia's most important policies WP:V. They need to be specifically cited to authoritative and important sources to meet that policy. I would agree facts are more important than views and the policy should reflect that. Where it doesn't, it needs to be fixed. So that's good, but again, you're repeatedly criticizing without knowing how these things are applied. Criticism can be helpful, but your's is coming accross as just figuring out as many things as you can to gripe about. That may not be your intent, but it is what it is. - Taxman Talk 19:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You're continuously using the argument that "things aren't like this in practice", but I'm not focusing on how things are in practice (I am aware that "in practice", people are primarily applying common sense and their concept of "fairness", and it differs from article to article). I'm focusing on that this policy, as it is right now, is in a desperate need of thorough scrutinizing and heavy modification. And if the reason this hasn't happened already is Jimbo's (aka the "GodKing") ego. Then I think this project has a real problem. And no, I don't like forks. --80.230.233.101 20:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not the reason the policy's not been scrapped. It's because it works pretty well. Your below proposal is unworkable. It would involve giving exactly as much space to ridiculous theories like flat earth as there is to verifiable scientific evidence that the earth is not flat. Your court analagy is useless because we are not a court. A court is specifically set up to decide a case and thus requires even time for each. That is not workable here. - Taxman Talk 17:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
See formulation below --80.230.233.101 09:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

An approach towards a new writing style policy

Be fair, but don't pretend to be neutral!

I think the court scenario analogy (see above) approach is very helpful in understanding the most serious problems of NPOV. First, NPOV (indirectly) claims it offers you an objective way to "characterize disputes", or "present different viewpoints". We can easily see, with the court analogy, that no such objective way exists. In court, as in a wikipedia article, each side has a limited time, space and means to present its arguments. Therefore the court (thus also wikipedia) is inherently imperfect in its presentation. We should aim not for an ideal "neutrality" but for fairness.