Milos Rancic wrote: > In relation to your Wikiquote example, I think that you were talking > there about notability, not about NPOV. > To the extent that notability has any value for us at all as a concept, it is only because it draws on the principle of a neutral point of view. Applying quotability criteria to Wikiquote is an approach to ensuring that it's not my point of view about what is a quotation, but instead I'm neutrally documenting quotations used by other sources. That's a rather straightforward form of neutral point of view, in fact, whereas notability has proven much more challenging to define. > NPOV is a very good starting point for writing an encyclopedia. But, > it is not any kind of general knowledge which may be implemented > everywhere. And, if it is treated as such, then it is an ideology. > > If the Board is not able to make a general scientific framework for > projects other than Wikipedia, I think that it should hire some > scientists to do so. > Scientific? Is there something scientific about neutral point of view as a framework for Wikipedia, even? It has some similarities to the scientific method, I suppose, but I'm not sure that's what we imagine ourselves to be doing. Science is part of the knowledge we are compiling, certainly. But neutral point of view is not a kind of knowledge itself. Rather, it is an approach to knowledge, one that has served us well and, as far as I can tell, runs through the culture of all our projects.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
