NPOV
A member of the non-cabal has identified a non-non-cabal-compatible point of view on this article. If you're the one who messed with it, prepare for execution. THERE WILL BE NO DISCUSSION.
The NPOV or 'Nother Point Of View (aka Nazi Point Of View) is the view of Jimbo, the mythical confounder of Wikipedia. An article is said to violate NPOV if it makes a potentially factual assertion. As a teacher, Jimbo often was consulted on which of two points of view was correct, only to offer another point of view altogether.
- His opinion is that an article should present facts and state differing opinions on a subject side by side. Hereby, wacky opinions are avoided. Wacky opinions are those that are incompatible with those of anglos, especially Jimbo or the Non-cabal.
If the general public leaning is very contrary to the NPOV, a very elaborate sort of NPOV is needed: the VNPOV (Very 'Nother Point Of View). Here, the aim is to state the accepted view as concisely as possible (half a sentence), while enumerating a wide variety of alternate (batshit insane) possibilities, utterly confusing the reader and leading to the impression that the subject is very heavily disputed, diffuse, and not yet settled, and especially that no conclusions at all can be drawn.
NPOV wiki articles are written in such a way that no bias not shared by the ruling clique is apparent. Articles with a NPOV are uninteresting and a waste of time.
In evaluating competing revisions to an article, one written by a scholar specialising in the field should prevail over a collaborative effort by a dozen high school students who have a link to a Tripod web page confirming their version is an example of biased writing which should be revised, as Wikipedia espouses the archaic concept of "expertise" over "collective wisdom", which is the foundation of all knowledge in the Web 2.0 world.
The gist of the NPOV[edit | edit source]
When it comes down to the meat and potatoes, NPOV means "Pleases the administrator or Wikipedophile currently in control of the article". On the English-speaking Wikipedia, this can equal GayPOV, JewPOV, and so on. Repeated failure to please the administrators resulted in the termination of Wikipedia's "everyone can fuck it up" policy.
For a much, Much MUCH better definition of neutrality please see The Truth The above link, interestingly enough, agrees completely with this one... What is the world coming to?
History of the NPOV[edit | edit source]
In 2001, the so-called NPOV "policy" was translated from Klingon by wikipedia's chief "meta-philosopher" Larry Sanger. During his bold intergalactic quest for the absolute truth, funded by his generous pornographer friend Bimbo Wales, he was astounded at discovering what the Klingons call their doctrine of truth:
- WE ARE THE MASTERS OF TRUTH. WE ARE THE RULERS. WE ARE OUR FRIEND AND ENEMY. THE MAJORITY AND THE MINORITY. WE SEE ALL. KNOW ALL. JUDGE ALL. VOID WHERE PROHIBITED.
Examples[edit | edit source]
| POV | NPOV |
|---|---|
| Romania is a beautiful country | Romania sucks |
| George W. Bush is a great president in bed | George W. Bush makes Hitler look like a baby (and would probably molest him, if given the chance) |
| Disco music was the epitome of the 70's | Disco music eats shit and dies |
| The Encyclopedia Britannica is the best encyclopedia in all of recorded history | The Encyclopedia Britannica is an antiquated relic which has no place in the Information Age |
Anonymous attributions[edit | edit source]
Similarly, if vandals revert your non-NPOV contributions, you may consider making it automatically true by phrasing it like so:
| Bad | Good |
|---|---|
| Michael Moore and France are part of a liberal conspiracy to control the universe. | Some say that Michael Moore and France are part of a liberal conspiracy to control the universe. |
| Kazaa is for evil pirates, because using it is literally theft, and the artists starve to death and it's all your fault. | It is widely believed that Kazaa is for evil pirates, because according to some, users spontaneously sprout peg-legs, lose sight in one eye, and have pet parrots. These are symptoms of piratry. |
| The Earth is flat and rests on the back of a giant turtle. | Some people believe the Earth is flat, and that it rests on the back of a giant turtle. Some scientists (who are generally agreed by some to be considered by some a somewhat relatively unrepresentive minority of the population) claim that the Earth Is Actually Round. |
Wikipedia on NPOV (with help from BaberFish)[edit | edit source]
"NPOV (neutral viewpoint) is an item of basic Wikipedia principle which expounded, all articles must write from a neutral viewpoint, quite and does not have the prejudice on behalf of the view. This includes the reader facing template, the category and the gateway. According to Wikipedia foundation Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolutely and not discusses the leeway."
"The Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint is Wikipedia three contents guidance policy page middle. Other two is Wikipedia:Verifiability and the Wikipedia:No original research. The union, these policy determinations are may accept in the main namespace material type and the quality. Because three policies complemented, they should not explain in the isolation from other, and the editor should therefore tries to cause oneself to be familiar all three. Three policies also not discuss the leeway, is unable to replace 由任 what other guides by the edition consensus or.
"The neutral viewpoint is the method deals with the contradictory view. The policy claim, has perhaps the contradictory view place, these should be equal was proposed, but had not asserted. All major issues view was proposed, not only most universal. It should not assert that, the most universal view or some kind of middle view in the different view are correct. The reader remains for forms they view.
"In order for the name to propose, the neutral viewpoint is not and viewpoint of viewpoint, hyu it is a nothing or an removal. Neutrality it is a viewpoint and - inside opposing whose is not sympathy and it knows in it subject.
"Discussion is described and, but is displayed, and is not characterized, does not engage. As for the background from some view has spread, what and why it believes, with someone is offered. In addition as for the detailed article perhaps it includes the mutual appraisal of each point of view, but it is better or, studiously you refrain from the fact that either one shows. One the side which everything of discussion is related being fair, can be cool think concerning fair writing as analyze description. To detect it is possible the article which has the necessity in bias case to be locked to the point of view of one specification."