Difference between revisions of "Neutral point of view"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: '''Neutral point of view''' is a Wikipedia doctrine that functions to censor Christian beliefs like creationism and prayer in schools. Although some conservative ed...)
 
(sometimes your sarcasm contains a germ of truth)
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Neutral point of view''' is a [[Wikipedia]] [[doctrine]] that functions to [[censor]] [[Christian]] beliefs like [[creationism]] and [[prayer in schools]]. Although some conservative editors initially supported it, the policy proved to be infected with [[liberal bias]] in its application.
+
'''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. The 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 11:18, 23 November 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. The 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