4 ms·

I don't understand Larry Sanger's complaint about NPOV. If a neutral encyclopedia was required to list all minority points of view on every topic then nothing w

I don't understand Larry Sanger's complaint about NPOV. If a neutral encyclopedia was required to list all minority points of view on every topic then nothing would be knowable. It wouldn't be able to say that the earth is round. If saying that the earth is round is biased then neutrality is worthless and not worth pursuing.

CydeWeys 6y ago
In even simpler terms, the use of editorial judgment is required to write an encyclopedia. Always has been, always will be. A website free of editorial judgment looks like 8chan, not an encyclopedia.
- grawprog 6y ago
  Even 8chan had some level of editorial judgement, however small it was. It was there.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    The Admin has been very active in preserving QAnon's presence on the board. Potentially to the point of hijacking the QAnon tripcodes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon#Identity_of_%22Q%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon#Identity_of_%22Q%22
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - grawprog 6y ago
      Well, i dare say, that would be an example of an editorial judgement. Agreeable or not.
TuringTest 6y ago
The original statement of NPOV was to at least mention any significant view supported by a significant minority of experts or people involved; not EVERY topic. It makes sense that, if you want the encyclopedia to be a starting point for investigating a subject, it informs you of the existence of significant non-sanctioned views. In practice, this need is usually satisfied by the Talk pages and archives. The published article is sanitized, but if you really want to learn about the controversies in the topic, your best choice is to dig deep in the discussions that resulted in the controversy being excised from the visible version. It's quite rare that the talk pages are also purged as well.
- Noumenon72 6y ago
  When I've been to the talk pages they were populated by even-less-neutral discussion about how to expunge anything that might offer support to people who believed the right-wing position.

CydeWeys 6y ago

In even simpler terms, the use of editorial judgment is required to write an encyclopedia. Always has been, always will be. A website free of editorial judgment looks like 8chan, not an encyclopedia.

grawprog 6y ago
Even 8chan had some level of editorial judgement, however small it was. It was there.
- Talanes 6y ago
  The Admin has been very active in preserving QAnon's presence on the board. Potentially to the point of hijacking the QAnon tripcodes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon#Identity_of_%22Q%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon#Identity_of_%22Q%22
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - grawprog 6y ago
    Well, i dare say, that would be an example of an editorial judgement. Agreeable or not.

TuringTest 6y ago

The original statement of NPOV was to at least mention any significant view supported by a significant minority of experts or people involved; not EVERY topic. It makes sense that, if you want the encyclopedia to be a starting point for investigating a subject, it informs you of the existence of significant non-sanctioned views. In practice, this need is usually satisfied by the Talk pages and archives. The published article is sanitized, but if you really want to learn about the controversies in the topic, your best choice is to dig deep in the discussions that resulted in the controversy being excised from the visible version. It's quite rare that the talk pages are also purged as well.

Noumenon72 6y ago
When I've been to the talk pages they were populated by even-less-neutral discussion about how to expunge anything that might offer support to people who believed the right-wing position.