WikiFur talk:NPOV dispute
I don't know if we want to do it this way.. case by case is okay now, but what happens when we have thousands of pages, tens of which are in NPOV disputes, and with differing viewpoints by the admins? It might be better to have something set a bit more firmly. Redcard 19:28, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Um.. that's why this is a tempory policy and the real one isn't done yet? -Nidonocu - talk 20:16, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Adoption of en Wikipedia NPOV policy?
I've read through the en Wikipedia NPOV Policy and it seems quite solid. I think that it would be a quite good policy for us to adopt as official over here on Wikifur. I thought previously of some recommendations I could put in, and the en Wikipedia NPOV policy pretty much mirrors and expands on what I had thought of. Brian Ryans 22:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- NPOV is the one content-guiding policy that I'd accept from Wikipedia with virtually no reservations. I had a read over the policy again, and it doesn't seem to contradict anything we've done so far. It is simply a requirement, if for no other reason than to stop people arguing over which view is the right one. The ability to say "X says this and Y says that [and make up your own mind which is right]" is essential for contentious topics.
- As for the other two . . .
- Verifiability has unresolvable problems because we write about so many things that have not been published anywhere, let alone in reputable journals. It's useful in a limited way as a way of demanding verification for questionable topics and personal disagreements, but if we required it for everything we'd have a very small number of very short articles.
- No original research is overall a non-starter - if slightly less so - because a lot of our pages do analyze topics in the furry fandom. Many of these are, in my view, the more interesting ones (Stereotype, pornography, ConFurence and the like). Now, using them to advance any particular position that people actually disagree with . . . that's a little trickier, it gets into the domain of NPOV, and I would expect that if people wanted to do that in a serious way they should write a personal article about it. To take the above example, it is good to have information on why ConFurence came to an end, but it is not good for one particular reason to be held above all others. There were several contributing factors, and they should be covered fairly in any general analysis. We will just have to hope that we are "equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one", given our limited domain and focussed user base. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Bumping this topic. I think we've seen from recent cases that we need our own NPOV policy. I'm not opposed to using Wikipedia's, since it has been hammered out by consensus and seems to handle the issue well. I agree that we should steer clear of WP:V and WP:OR. I won't rehash why, because GreenReaper already said it better than I would. --CodyDenton 08:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC) My opinion is, that we definitely get NPOV rules. If not mirroring wikipedia's then at least based off of it. That is one of the many reason's people acll WikiFur biased. I understand the original research problem, but we don't have to add that rule. But there should definitely be some neutrality laws here. Equivamp 02:58, 8 May 2011 (EDT)