Debate:Wikipedia's NPOV policy

Soon after finding RW, I was asked about my discussions of neutrality and moderation during my short time as a "contributor" on Conservapedia. Rather than diving directly into my views, some of which I discuss on my blog and various Conservapedia pages, and others of which aren't really complete yet (as we all know here, no thought is ever "complete"), I'd rather discuss neutrality and moderation related topics with which we're all familiar, like this one. I'm also starting a discussion of political moderation soon. So, some things to ponder:

Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Wikipedia's NPOV FAQ.

Wikipedia's NPOV Tutorial.

Ideal NPOV: If everyone followed it as currently written, would this policy effectively prevent bias in Wikipedia? If not, what additions or changes (or simplifications or removals of current points, since adding to the system isn't always the answer) might help?

NPOV in practice: From your experience on Wikipedia, do you think the NPOV policy is explained effectively, and how well do editors apply it?

Ideal NPOV
You can't possibly follow it completely. But as best you can will be fine. There will always be Andys and Ariana Huffingtons who think it's biased. There is no real way to improve on it, as trying to perfect it is impossible. -- *Gen. S.T. Shrink*  Get to the bunker  23:04, 14 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Here's how I look at the concept of trying to "perfect" something: go get your favorite graphing calculator and graph y = -1 / x. Look at the curve where x is positive. Each point on the graph represents a certain level of "progress", where smaller negative values of y mean that whatever "thing" you're working on is better. "Perfection" is at y = 0; the graph never really gets there, it just gets really close. As long as we keep trying to make things better, x keeps increasing, so things keep getting better, even though we can never reach "perfection". Perfection is more of a goal than a real state of being. OneForLogic 13:57, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

NPOV in practice
I think the policy has it's flaws, without a doubt. The part concerning Bias says, correctly that all editors and sources have bias, what matters is the balance. But that can't possibly work, as once a liberal editor came in, a conservative one would balance it out. Then a liberal would come and keep repeating over and over. Soon a one paragraph article would be huge. So how to solve it? You can't. Because what people see as bias is objective. What is inclusionary to some is bias to others. What is simply being tolerant to some is considered bias. Which is why Conservapedia formed. It will never be pefect. But it will work. *Gen. S.T. Shrink*  Get to the bunker  23:01, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
 * So there's no way to start out neutral and unbiased? The only way to get there is for liberals and conservatives to fight until the thing they're working on is so convoluted and beaten up that neither side feels like objecting to it anymore? That's the way I always imagine Congress working, except that I've always thought that it must be possible to do better. The inevitable way you describe it sounds so pessimistic; I guess that means you're probably right. OneForLogic 14:02, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I've been in it in an effort to show that the dog is an apex predator because, except for good behavior, it is a competent killer of vermin, livestock, and wildlife -- and has most of the characteristics of animals that can eat humans. The presence of a dog is enough to scare most animals (including humans) off. Nobody denies that it is a meat-eater, and nobody can deny that those who raise poultry, sheep, or cattle don't want strange dogs lurking about.

To be sure, dogs are not the top predator in the whole world -- there are animals that can eat it (sharks, crocodiles, alligators, bears, Big Cats, giant snakes, hyenas, and wolves) -- but in much of the world it has no peer as a predator except for Man, and it is effectively an equal of Man. It participates in human hunts, so even if it does not deliver a death bite it is part of the killing team as if it were a wolf in a pack if it only flushes, retrieves, or points at game. Dogs and humans rarely prey on each other, but it is arguable that pound for pound, the dog would win a fight with an unarmed human due to its power, agility, and strength.

So fit the definition, make obvious qualifications, and find sources. I added a picture that had a dogsled with a human in a hunt (someone eventually replaced it with a more overt hunting scene -- quail-hunting with humans, rifles, and dogs. I eventually got the dog included among some of the deadliest predators on Earth. For much of the animal world a large dog or a pack of medium-to-small dogs might as well be "the other Big Cat". If the Komodo Dragon is the top predator on some small islands, the dog is one of two large top predators in a larger place -- like Ireland. Pbrower2a (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)