Myself, I consider NPOV as what distinguishes an encyclopedia from promotion and advocacy. Agreed it is hard to get there completely, but the effort to approximate it is what makes Wikipedia a work of reference, and conservopedia a joke. ~~~~
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Anthony<[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < > [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Wikinews does not adhere to the strict NPOV interpretation that is >> inevitable for Wikipedia. Wikiversity could not even come close >> to employing anything remotely like it. Wikispecies actually >> doesn't have any need for anything like it. And for Wikisource, >> just as for Wikinews, NPOV can only be considered to apply in >> a thoroughly transmogrified form. > > > Knowing very little about Wikiversity and Wikispecies, I'd be interested in > how that can work. I mean, for the general public to collaborate on a wiki, > you have to have some form of rule about objectivity, don't you? > > I understand that NPOV has a meaning within the English Wikipedia which > doesn't apply in most of the other projects, but there is an essence of it > that applies to all the projects, isn't there? > > Maybe I'm wrong. I'm really interested in your answer if I am. > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
