User:Picaroon9288/WPOV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline.[1] Please improve the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page or creator's talk page. |
- The correct title of this essay is User:Picaroon9288/Wikipedia point of view, but that title is just too long.
Neutral point of view is an official policy of Wikipedia, but many, many people, either intentionally or unintentionally, violate it every day. However, there's one sort of bias, one specific viewpoint, which I'm going to focus on. This isn't because it is special or unique or excusable - it is because it some people think it is, and use this view they hold to claim that it is okay to force it onto articles. This is the Wikipedia point of view, or WPOV,[2] and it takes several forms.[3]
Contents |
[edit] Cases in point
[edit] Case in point 1
See, for example, the article Criticism of Wikipedia. Every once in a while, a well-meaning Wikipedian comes along, and, in violation of NPOV and Wikipedia:Attribution#No original research, does his best to refute one argument or another against the encyclopedia. And unlike the typical response of POV pushers, (the "Oh I'm non-biased/how dare you revert me!" excuses and defenses), some of them actually seem to be aware that their version isn't balanced and neutral, but apparently rely on the idea "well, this is Wikipedia - we can defend ourselves!" to excuse it. This is bad, because WP:NPOV is a policy - a pillar - of Wikipedia.
[edit] Case in point 2
Another example of WPOV is a conflict that ocurred back in October and November 2006, where many people were of the opinion that Wikipedia:Esperanza[4] and Wikipedia:Barnstars should be linked to from the top of articles Esperanza and Barnstar, respectively.[5] Nevermind that we're here to write an encyclopedia and distribute it to our readers - editor convenience is good, too. Nevermind the fact that Encyclopædia Britannica wouldn't have a hatnote about its editor support group at the top of it's article about support groups - professionalism is irrelevant. Nevermind that our readers don't care whatsoever - readers? Who're they?
[edit] Case in point 3
A third example is the creation of articles on certain people who really aren't all that notable. And usually, they would be deleted pretty quickly. Save one thing - they're about Wikipedia people. Everything is different now.
See, for example, Angela Beesley. Or Erik Möller.[6] They don't pass Wikipedia's normal notability guidelines, but they're created and kept because some people don't understand being connected to the Wikimedia Foundation is not an indication of notability.[7]
[edit] Conclusion
It all boils down to the point that we're writing an encyclopedia for our readers, not ourselves, and that we need to bring them a neutral encyclopedia free of pro-Wikipedia bias, self-references, and non-notable people. No This POV, no That POV, no Wikipedia POV.[8]
[edit] See also
[edit] Notes
- ^ Far from it, in fact.
- ^ I've also seen WPOV used to refer to "world point of view" and "white point of view." Oh well.
- ^ Eek, I'm violating the MOS by leaving the title until the fourth sentence.
- ^ Disbanded per MFD.
- ^ The Esperanza one is gone, but the self-ref at Barnstar is still there.
- ^ The article about Erik has been redirected to Wikimedia Foundation per its third afd, but the article about Angela is still there, after five (at last count) afds.
- ^ Note that they happen to agree that they aren't notable.
- ^ Catchy, eh?
- ^ So, do I win an award for most refs in an essay?
