Difference between revisions of "Neutral point of view"
(sometimes your sarcasm contains a germ of truth) |
JLauttamus (talk | contribs) (copyedit; not too sure what you're referring to. Maybe change from an indefinite pronoun?) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Beginning around 2004, it has functioned to [[censor]] information about conservative points of view. | Beginning around 2004, it has functioned to [[censor]] information about conservative points of view. | ||
| − | The original intent, when first expounded by [[Jimbo Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]], was to prevent any article from presenting exclusively one point of view on any controversial subject. However, influential cliques eventually found that they could suppress minority viewpoints with the "undue weight" provision. | + | The original intent, when first expounded by [[Jimbo Wales]] and [[Larry Sanger]], was to prevent any article from presenting exclusively one point of view on any controversial subject. However, influential cliques eventually found that they could suppress minority viewpoints with the "undue weight" provision. This would claim that by giving attention to a "fringe" viewpoint, an article would give "equal validity" to POV. In practice, this functioned the same as University [[speech codes]] to prevent opposing viewpoints from being described fairly - which directly contradicts NPOV. |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 17:23, November 23, 2008
Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a Wikipedia guideline which proved to be infected with liberal bias in its application. Beginning around 2004, it has functioned to censor information about conservative points of view.
The original intent, when first expounded by Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger, was to prevent any article from presenting exclusively one point of view on any controversial subject. However, influential cliques eventually found that they could suppress minority viewpoints with the "undue weight" provision. This would claim that by giving attention to a "fringe" viewpoint, an article would give "equal validity" to POV. In practice, this functioned the same as University speech codes to prevent opposing viewpoints from being described fairly - which directly contradicts NPOV.