Proposal talk:Replace NPOV with Identifiable-POV

    From Strategic Planning

    There are as many views and assessments of a given topic as there are thinking observers. Majority-POV does indeed seem to pass for NPOV where POV is a euphemism for bias, which is any slant that fails to please the speaker's.

    Alas, an underlying assumption seems to be that there is only One Truth.

    This is incorrect and narrowminded.

    There is no final, objective version of anything under the sun.

    The Wiki worlds ought to reflect this.

    Just to be clear, there is no assumption in the original proposal that there is only One Truth. Clearly, there are as many POVs as there are thinking observers, perhaps even as many Truths. Thus the suggestion that Identifiable-POV's have some process to reduce proliferation and nonsensical application. It is understood that there is no objective version of anything. I even agree that Wiki should reflect this. The suggestion is to simply make it a little more transparent.
    NPOV, correctly applied, doesn't preclude multiple perspectives within an article. What it calls for is a net balanced presentation that accommodates all relevant viewpoints in appropriate proportion. In theory, this is great. This issue is more to the application, where NPOV becomes the tool of a particularlly aggressive set of editors to lawyer their way into pushing a Mainstream-POV or other seemingly justifiable specific POV ... and here's the crux of the proposal ... without ever clearly labeling the POV from which they speak. NPOV becomes something to hide behind. The proposal is to call a spade a spade. We know everyone takes a POV ... let's label them.
    In fact, although the proposal suggests replacing NPOV, it could have just as easily suggested to add Identifiable-POV on top of the NPOV requirement for some appropriate balance. The only reason I phrased it as I did, was to step away from the legacy that I think "NPOV" brings to the table. --Mbilitatu 20:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Your "Identifiable-POV" is already being applied. It is just a combination of the NPOV and verifiability policies, which means that wherever there are several relevant points of view regarding an issue, they must be presented in a balanced and sourced manner. There are lots and lots of articles that have sections dedicated to individual points of view and explicitly labeled as such: "Arguments for X", "Arguments against X", etc. Each point of view is clearly identified.

    Also, since avoiding weasel words is being more and more reinforced, it becomes progressively rare to see articles presenting a point of view without stating whose it is. AdiJapan 06:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Assuming that there is a lack of NPoV only works if you're talking about an *opinion piece*. If Wikipedia just reported facts, like it is suppose to, then there is indeed a NPoV way of writing the article. Facts have no point of view, only interpretations do.
    However, that said, I suspect that this is yet another attempt by the conspiracy theory nutjobs to try and force their wacked-out viewpoint onto Wikipedia. It won't work. You'll be deleted on sight. Why? Because even in cases where limited, evidence based majority-PoV applies, THAT ISN'T YOU! You have no evidence. You have no facts on your side. Therefore even when PoV is permissible, yours isn't. Because it isn't just *any* PoV that is allowed. It has to be PoV with something to back it up other than an overactive imagination combined with a fantasy prone personality. Gopher65talk 13:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is a reply to AdiJapan. I agree there are lots of articles already with sections dedicated to points of view. That's why I think this is a reasonable proposal. It's already being done on an ad-hoc basis. This would just institutionalize that approach. The most common example where I think institutionalization would help are alternative topics that are not fringe, yet not mainstream. There is a tendency for the mainstream to hold a double standard. So many alternative topics have majority content that is critical/skeptical of the topic. The POV of the topic itself gets snuffed out. Maybe weasel-word policy is being enforced more ... I haven't seen it. --Mbilitatu 00:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    There are indeed many sensitive topics with very hot struggle on the view to content, and this struggle just reflects the existing struggle between social groups in the society. During this struggle, facts and references also do not necessarily matter; they are at times just removed by the opposing side. I am indeed not so sure if in such case forcing to have one article is so a good approach; maybe it is better to allow groups to write they own versions. This would not cancel requirement for references and notability, allowing that way to criticize the page of the opposing group. Audriusa 15:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Impact?

    Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]