Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 008

NPOV
I think NPOV should be scaled down as much as possible. I think there may be more to neutral articles than neutral point of view. For example perhaps Positive tone should be equally if not more important. I think that having the only official policy on Wikipedia relate to point of views may give opinions precedence over facts. Bensaccount 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For a moment, I was speechless. AFAIK Wikipedia basically relies on existing information which can be presented as facts if everyone seems to agree about the high reliability, but that such is presented as opinions when the reliability is disputed (IOW, when it is not everyone's opinion that a claimed fact is a fact). Thus, IMO your problem is non-existent. Harald88 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I follow what you are saying and the logical outcome of this is that eventually the reliability of every statement will be disputed and will have to be put into opinion form. I think that a lot of (all) valuable content will be lost in the process. Bensaccount 22:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly not! In order to do a reality check, I just now typed in the first IMO straightforward subject that came to my mind: apple. And what I saw was what I expected, and quite the contrary from what you claim; you are certainly far too pessimistic. Harald88 22:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Lets say I felt very strongly that apple was only a computer company because I did not know about the fruit. I say by NPOV it is necessary to cite someones opinion that apple is a fruit and someone elses opinion that it is a computer company. Since there is disagreement, NPOV comes into play right? Bensaccount 22:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, technically, although it's a trivial example. Neutrality policy would say, "apple=fruit" is a notable view. "apple=computers" is a notable view, both can be expressed neutrally. That's in essence what a disambiguation page is, a neutral statement that expression X has the following meanings. FT2 22:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * But disambiguation is not an official policy. Only NPOV is. Therefore you must state these two opinions on the apple page. Bensaccount 22:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Or lets say I felt that the apple intro should be told exclusively from the opinion of local apple farmers. "According to local apple farmers, the apple is a tree and its pomaceous fruit, of species Malus domestica in the family Rosaceae, and is one of the most widely cultivated tree fruits." Bensaccount 22:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My point was: look at how Wikipedia works, with the current policy. The apple article is fine, the intro is not about a dispute, but a positive formulation about apples, and the article is varied and interesting. That's the reality I tried to show you, instead of your imagination. Harald88 08:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes the intro is fine. My point was that it is violating NPOV. If NPOV were followed on this page as strictly as on other pages, the intro would be quite different. Bensaccount 16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. Maybe the way you interpret it... Harald88 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * NPOV is not about stating everything in terms of citable opinions. There are some points that are simply not a matter of dispute, and one single editor or small group of editors don't have the power to create a dispute where there is none in the "real" world. The consensus process is just as able to identify nonsense and dismissable POVs it is to identify when there are competing POVs that need representation. If an apple farmer was insisting that the intro to apple be about only the McIntosh they would be one lone voice in a sea of opposing consensus, and it just wouldn't happen. This is fine, works, and is in line with the goal of the project and NPOV policy. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think the work of the consensus process should be a reason to ignore problems inherent to NPOV, even if usually the process works so well that NPOV looks like it also is working. Bensaccount 14:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You stated a concern that "having the only official policy on Wikipedia relate to point of views may give opinions precedence over facts", and the response has been that this doesn't actually happen and so it isn't evidence that the NPOV policy is flawed. Is this accurately your concern, or is your concern something different? (Note also that NPOV is not the only official Wikipedia policy.) &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It does happen. It happens whenever there is a dispute. It doesn't have to be a controversial subject. Any time two Wikipedians get into an argument, which is the first rule to be evoked? (No its not dispute resolution, be serious). The first thing you get is allegations of POV. -- What I would like is for this rule to be scaled down so that people don't just say "that is a POV, to whom can you attribute it" but also "that is an incorrect fact, how can we correct it.".Bensaccount 16:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is why I invoked the consensus process. Either the consensus will agree that it is POV and needs to be represented in the article that way, or the consensus will agree that it is a fact/non-fact and represent it in the article this way. I understand the issue you're bringing up, but I only see that Wikipedia is managing to handle it as Wikipedia was designed to. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 19:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again, I know there is a process that usually works. However, there is a certain leverage that NPOV provides that allows people to sway the outcome of this process in favour of opinions. Bensaccount 02:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Granted. However, is this a problem in actual practice? I understand the theoretical issue you present, but whether it manifests in practice in a way that is detrimental to the goals of the project is really all that matters here. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 07:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It is stated. Right at the top it states that "apple" has multiple meanings, and neutrally, this page concerns meaning X. For other meanings see page Y.

If it still bothers you that the selection of which page is "the" apple page isn't neutral, do a page move from "apple" to "apple (fruit), edit "apple" to redirect to "apple (disambiguation)" and it's solved.

And no, the apple (fruit) intro shouldn't be told from any given POV. Thats clear NPOV policy in action. According to these views this, and according to those other views that. FT2 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Since NPOV is a more official rule than disambiguation, the apple page should remain at its present location and if there is another view it can be placed on the page. It should say: "According to most computer users, apple is a computer company, even though farmers often consider apples to be fruits".


 * The intro should be told from the POV of local apple farmers - since they only know about McIntosh apples only these apples should be included. If some other group thinks there are other apples they can be included also but they must be attributed. Bensaccount 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Daft argument. WP:NPOV says what you need to do to be neutral. It doesn't say how the neutral matter should be worded, just that when you do, these are things it should implement. A disambiguation page is one implementation of a way to do NPOV in a subject with multiple meanings. There are others. FT2 23:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok forget my need to state the apple (fruit) article from the POV of a computer user. Disambiguation resolves this dispute so well that it is hard to imagine what kind of problems would occur if NPOV were given precedence. It is fortunate that people heed the disambiguation format so well. Consider instead my second example. Bensaccount 00:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * NPOV isn't broken. There's no need to fix it. FeloniousMonk 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure. The first example above shows that disambiguation is a much better response to certain disputes. The second example shows that often NPOV should be disregarded in favour of positive tone. If NPOV were strictly followed in such cases it would result in a lot of valuable content being lost. I am not saying NPOV is broken necessarily -- there are disputes where attributing can lead to a better article. I just think that there might be more required to obtain neutral articles. Bensaccount 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So make neutrality secondary to a positive, sympathetic tone? I don't think so. It flies in the face of one of the founding precepts of Wikipedia, not to mention Jimbo's declaration that NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". FeloniousMonk 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe a merge of NPOV with positive tone to give them equal footing? Bensaccount 17:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Right now it is required that NPOV be followed as a limitation of what may and may not be written. It does not mean that it is the only guideline that editors can use in writing articles. Besides, positive tone is specifically not a part of Wikipedia. That's one reason that Wikinfo was founded. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I had not heard of Wikinfo - thanks! Harald88 22:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what that is but it doesn't really address the problem I am trying to describe. Neither for that matter does Positive tone. I think an appropriate corollary to NPOV is something like "Facts precede opinions". Bensaccount 03:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was reading and I came across another complaint that I think is similar to mine: "Is Wikipedia about representing knowledge, as an encyclopaedia should be? If so, this part of the proposed NPOV policy is dangerous to the long term academic integrity of the project. The current NPOV article makes Wikipedia's mission out not to be a summation of human knowledge, but rather only a much less worthwhile task - it will be merely a summation of human arguments. That is not a goal many scientists or historians will spend their time on. They will simply refuse to contribute. That, you can be sure, will not be the case for the millions of deluded and sometimes mean-spirited people who promote and push pseudo-science and pseudo-history. They will take advantage of this project. This may become more apparent as the project progresses."- RK. Bensaccount 03:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bensaccount. The prime directive of an encyclopedia should be to convey knowledge -- facts, NOT to devote lots of space to each opposing point of view. E.g, if I read an article on nuclear power, I want to learn primarily about THAT, not about the endless debates. If I wanted to read about the debates, I'd look for an article titled "nuclear controversies".


 * The problem with stressing NPOV as currently defined is it prioritizes devoting space to the pros/cons of any controversy within the article. A factual article becomes peppered with Crossfire-style pro/con information in the name of NPOV. That dilutes and obscures the main purpose for an encyclopedia's existence -- to convey information about the stated topic.


 * I'm not saying all pro/con positions within an article should be eliminated. However these should always be secondary to the topic, and NPOV should be revised to emphasize that. If the topic has extreme controversy associated with it, there should be a separate article about just that aspect. E.g, the average reader should come away from the nuclear power article educated about that, not knowing little about the topic except that it's controversial.


 * If you compare some key Wikipedia articles to traditional encyclopedias you'll see what I mean. Again using nuclear power as an example, the equivalent Encarta article emphasizes the factual aspects of the topic. It does cover some controversy, but this is subordinate and secondary. By contrast the very first page of the Wikipedia article devotes more space to the controversy than to the topic itself.


 * I suggest NPOV be altered to emphasize conveying just the facts, vs the current emphasis on presenting the pros/cons of each viewpoint. You can still do both, but the prime directive should be convey the facts about each topic, not allocate lots of space for each position in a debate. Joema 17:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What you term "presenting the pros and cons" is actually just the reporting of the relevant viewpoints of the relevant parties to a topic that is controversial. How one can expect to maintain a neutral point of view and not present both sides of a debate is beyond me... FeloniousMonk 19:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a tricky question. I don't think it is possible...It is possible however, to present a neutral article without any points of view at all... Bensaccount 20:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Again I ask: is this a problem in actual practice? Both Nuclear power and Apple present facts. I understand the theoretical objection being made about the NPOV policy, but I also ask that attention be paid to the question of whether or not Wikipedia is actually suffering from the ailments that NPOV policy is accused of causing. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 20:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I can only theorize. I don't think this can be proven. I also don't think that the need for NPOV can be proven either. Just as neutral articles may evolve without it. Bensaccount 20:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking for proof, only for any evidence that supports this assertion at all. Hypotheses are lovely but must be thrown out if there is no supporting evidence. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 20:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Heres an example: see Facts precede opinions. Bensaccount 21:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * An example of how it might happen is not evidence that it is a problem or even happens in the first place. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 23:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, from what you've written at Facts precede opinions, you seem to misunderstand what NPOV policy requires. NPOV does not require third party opinions to back up statements. It requires that the Point Of View used to write articles not take any sides (i.e., neutral). Not taking any sides does not preclude an article from stating facts and does not force the article to be put in terms of opinions. I quote: "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 23:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For actual examples of issues involving NPOV we can start on this discussion page. Scroll up to, but remember that it is hard to find concrete evidence when you are dealing with people's discussions. Bensaccount 15:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not a useful example. Show me an actual article where this is a problem and it can be demonstrated that NPOV is the source of the problem. You're not making a strong case so far for changing the fundamental policy of this entire project. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok read this vague complaint involving NPOV at . Now go to Neuro-linguistic_programming and read the intro. This article has probably been heavily NPOVed. Based on the intro can you tell me what the subject is? Bensaccount 17:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * NLP is a psychological model used by therapists and others, from what I can see at the article. 1) name the problem here, 2) demonstrate conclusively that NPOV must be torn from the heart of Wikipedia to fix this problem. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 02:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying NLP is a "model" is meaningless. It is a model of what? From reading the intro one may get the impression that NLP is a model of "the relationship between mind and language". But you notice it doesn't actually say what it is a model of. It says that Richard Bandler and John Grinder propose that it models the relationship between mind and language. This is because whether it is or not is unknown. It seems that the only thing actually known about this subject is that it is a collection of self-help recommendations, promoted through the popular psychology and self development sections of bookshops, and advertised in various media including the Internet and infomercials. This sentence was pushed out of the intro (probably to keep it NPOV). It is also attributed as 'the widest opinion on the subject'. I think it is likely that someone disputed this fact, evoking NPOV, and therefore it had to be pushed out of the intro and attributed. To me it seems this is an example of NPOV giving precedence to opinions over facts. Of course, if you want to debate that NLP is what I said it is, my demonstration has no effect. Anyways, I dont think NPOV must be torn from the heart of Wikipedia to fix this problem. I think that adding a rule like FPO (and giving it as much authority as NPOV) should be sufficient. In this case if it can be agreed that the statement "NLP is a model of the relationship between mind and language" is an opinion, while "collection of self-help recommendations, promoted through the popular psychology and self development sections of bookshops, and advertised in various media including the Internet and infomercials" is a fact, the latter should be given precedence. If it can not be agreed, any factual statement about NLP that can be agreed upon should be given precedence over the opinions that the intro currently consists of. Bensaccount 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but no, you're entirely wrong about why NLP says what it does. The article about NLP is currently the turf of a major and lengthy edit war and is currently the subject of Arbitration between multiple editors. The reasons for NLP's intro being vague has nothing to do with people's application of NPOV policy and everything to do with editors POV warring in violation of NPOV policy. Furthermore you haven't done (2), in which I asked you to show conclusively that the problem in the example article is demonstrably the fault of NPOV&mdash;you've only guessed that it might be, and been mistaken at that.
 * Before you go on let me say that you're making a very weak case for changing the First Law of Wikipedia. I don't think you grasp how fundamental a change you are proposing to make. Unless you have something to show that shakes the entire Project to its core, it's just not going to be enough to convince anyone that the most important policy of the Project, the policy around which the entire Project has been built, around with all other policy has been crafted, and toward which every editor in good standing has been working, needs to be scaled back in favour of some other policy. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 04:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I can not "shake the entire project to the core", but I could do a demonstration. I am pretty sure that if I tried to add a factual statement to the intro of NLP it would spur shouts of NPOV by users who want it removed. I doubt there will even be a discussion of whether it is a fact or an opinion. I don't know if this would convince you, but I do think that the vagueness of the intro is due at least in part to NPOV. I don't know if giving FPO equal authority would fix this page, but it may allow for discussion of fact vs opinion rather than prioritizing attributed viewpoints over all else. Bensaccount 23:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't have something that can shake the project to its core, then you won't convince enough people to do as you propose.
 * As for NLP, NPOV has been abused there, and FPO would be abused as easily by the very same people. That some editors edit without civility and fight for their version of the article isn't the fault of NPOV. Such a demonstration would fail to control for that kind of confounding factor and so would be meaningless. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 04:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet frequently Wikipedia articles over emphasize pro/con viewpoints on a subject, RATHER THAN THE SUBJECT ITSELF. This is apparently encouraged by common interpretation of the current NPOV policy. The NPOV article says "write about what people believe, rather than what is so". That is the opposite of what is needed. The priority should be sticking to the facts and writing about what is so -- the topic, NOT about people's beliefs and feelings on that topic. The main purpose of an encyclopedia is to convery information about the stated topic, NOT to be a Crossfire-style forum for debate in the name of NPOV.

It's true the certainty of "what is so" varies from topic to topic. But the pro/con thing is out of hand. Take the nuclear power example -- the main purpose of that article should be to cover and educate about the stated topic -- nuclear power. Including some information about the debate is OK. That's what Encarta does, in an appropriate manner. But in the Wikipedia article, the debate drowns out the factual material.

At least in the evolution article, there's a link to a separate Creation-evolution controversy article. With many articles there is no link, so the pro/con debate clutters up the main article.

On other controversial topics, I often see complaints about "that sounds like a press release, you should include pros/cons on how people feel on that". That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia!! You may like or dislike like nuclear power or evolution or missile defense. But the main priority is cover the description of the topic, not get bogged down in the pros/cons of how people feel about that topic.

That may not be what the NPOV article intended. But it's worded in a way that encourages diluting factual information with pro/con positions in the name of objectivity. For example: "present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree". This is often interpreted and implemented as giving equal space to advocates of each position, within the body of the article. Yet neither side should have much space -- the article should prioritize covering the topic alone. Joema 00:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your expressed problem is with pro &amp; con lists, and not with the Neutral Point of View at all. Please read Pro & con lists. Uncle G 06:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But he is not just complaining about pro and con lists. His complaint is with the tendency of NPOV to emphasize pro/con viewpoints rather than the subject itself. Bensaccount 17:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That is correct. NPOV is a good idea, but as currently worded it encourages cluttering articles with pro/con viewpoints, regardless of whether in list form or not. Even if that's not the intent of NPOV, that's how people often interpret it. They read an article they feel strongly about, and want to add their opinion. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia or a dictionary. When you look up "Indian" in a dictionary, it doesn't discuss whether sports teams should be called that. Rather it defines the word, how to pronounce it, various meanings, and possibly the linguistic origin. Likewise an encyclopedia should prioritize providing facts about the topic, not how people feel about the topic. The main intent of NPOV is: "encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view". That is good. Unfortunately other elements of NPOV encourage emphasizing pro/con viewpoints (whether in list form or not), and how people feel about the topic, rather than just the facts. Examples: "Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating." "Does the article fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each?" The main priority of an encyclopedia is not to present all significant viewpoints, but to be a factual reference about the topic. Admittedly this will vary with subject material. If the topic is about controversy (e.g, Creation-evolution controversy), then of course you present various viewpoints. Wikipedia handled this well for abortion. That article largely sticks to descriptive information, with a link to abortion debate. However in general the article should heavily prioritize sticking to the descriptive facts on the topic, not how people feel about that. That's how other encyclopedias handle it. There's no simple one-size-fits-all answer. Articles sometimes require inclusions of pro/con viewpoints, because of the subject matter. But there's a risk of readers coming away from a Wikipedia article knowing more about popular controversies surrounding the topic than about the topic itself. NPOV as currently worded and often interpreted encourages this. Joema 18:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, xe is complaining about pro and con lists. See the immediately preceding.  Xe is even repeating the "pro and con lists act as original research magnets" argument that is on Pro & con lists.  Again, I suggest reading that page. Uncle G 05:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Re pro/con lists, Ben's post of 17:23, 26 December was in reply to your post of 06:36, 26 December, which was apparently in reply to my post of 00:58, 24 December. You said I expressed a problem with pro/con lists, not with NPOV. Ben explained my post did concern NPOV. I then elaborated on that. Lastly, you referenced xe, which I don't understand at all, since the recent posts on this (which you were apparently replying to) were mine, not xe's. Joema 16:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Template Modifications
I'm in the processing of cleaning up stale NPOV disputes. I'd like to change the templates to be similar to the cleanup-date templates so we can mark POV disputes by time initiated to better detect when this stuff started. Objections? -- Jbamb 16:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops sorry
I think my new section in 2005_Sony_CD_copy_protection_controversy breaks this policy, does it?