Re: NPOV and NOR as a local or a global policies on Wikibooks?

Right now Wikiversity allows editors to make non-NPOV edits as long as they
make a full disclosure (
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Disclosures ), which is why I
wasn't aware NPOV was a Foundation-wide rule (although it does make sense).
In light of this correction I don't know that POV writings have much of a
future there either (and perhaps someone should bring this up on Wikiversity
before writings in breach of global policy get too much out of hand).

As for a non-Foundation home there's the Academic Publishing Wiki (
http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page ), but right now it's for
journal-style works rather than book-length ones (although this could of
course change). Wikiversity currently links to some of its content in a
roundabout way and there has even been talk of possibly merging the project
(although, again, if NPOV is still a mandatory rule this may not be possible
as some works on that wikia seem to be slightly POV).

Regardless of the implementation, the type of criticism/instruction being
written should never be an excuse for not sticking to rules against POV and
OR if it is at all possible to find other works detailing the topic.

Anyway, that's the state of things.

Garrett

On 13/03/07, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I completely understand why NPOV is nearly perfect for any kind of
> something which we call "objective knowledge". And there is no
> question about NPOV inside of factographic descriptions of anything.
>
> However, POV analysis of art are very usable for art studies.
> Actually, there is no such thing like NPOV art critics. (But it is
> possible to have NPOV book about art critics.)
>
> My point is that I think that we need, for example, "Dadaist critics
> of South Park" -- for educational purpose because:
>
> - Dadaism is not live cultural movement and it is not so obvious that
> there will be some dadaist who would do so. However, it is possible to
> imagine dadaist critics of South Park.
> - If Wikibooks and Wikiversity want to have complete courses for some
> art field, there is a lot of needs for improvisation. If there is no
> some art critique which we need because of educational purposes, we
> should make it. In other words, if we want to have a *real* free
> source for complete education, we need a lot of things which are not
> NPOV nor NOR.
>
> So, there are a couple of solutions:
> - Wikibooks and/or Wikiversity allow POV and OR for art analysis. This
> is the best solution because we will have one community. Also,
> realization of the goal "free education" will stay inside of the
> projects which aim to work on this goal.
> - Wikimedia makes another project for such purpose (something like
> "wikiartstudies"). This is something like a "middle solution" because
> we will have de jure one community, but de facto two. Realization of
> the goal "free education" will be outside of Wikibooks and
> Wikiversity, but inside of Wikimedia.
> - The worst solution is to try to find a solution out of Wikimedia
> (i.e. Wikia or anything else) because we will have both de jure and de
> facto different communities. Realization of the goal will be outside
> of both -- projects and Wikimedia.
>