Wikiquote talk:Neutral point of view/Draft< Wikiquote talk:Neutral point of view
I have created this draft to address what I see as certain inadequecies with the current neutral point of view policy. To summarize my comments from the policy's talk page, I feel that our policy as written does not account for the fact that the selection and/or presentation of quotes can be just as POV, perhaps even more so, than non-NPOV non-quote text. By presenting narrow sections of quotes, it is possible to strip it of its original context and make the quote appear to support or oppose an issue that the original speaker did not intend. Also, it is possible to exclude or remove quotes that one feels do not support "their" position, or present a view that they may not agree with (for example, someone might remove all quotes critical of a certain religion). —LrdChaos (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- This draft was substantially expanded recently, incorporating ideas from it.wikiquote. I have a couple comments on this draft:
- A policy would be easier to cite (and discuss) with prominent, succinct statements of what is required or prohibited. These could be highlighted with subheadings or bullets. Much of the page is essay-like, using a rhetorical style more appropriate for discussion than for definition of policy. Explanatory material, i.e. rationales and suggestions, should be brief and should be positioned so as to leave the fundamental policy statement(s) most prominent on the page.
- I am a little troubled by the emphasis on covering a topic, i.e., "...quotes should adequately represent all of the major views..." and "Quotes should be selected because they are relevant...." While quotability is addressed in the following paragraphs, I think the emphasis should be different. Wikipedia requires including all of the major views in order to cover a topic, but I see Wikiquote's purpose differently. Here I think neutrality means Wikiquote permits including any quotable views relevant to a topic. Most articles having POV problems were crappy articles because they had crappy quotes. Just as POV should not be allowed to motivate including such material, balancing POV should not be allowed to justify it either.
- Taken as a whole, I do not think the current draft is a good candidate for adoption. It does make several valid points, but many are just common sense. I would be interested in learning about specific behavior problems we are experiencing that could be addressed by particular policy statements. Otherwise, I would consider it a higher priority to develop the Wikiquote:quotability policy (not to mention formally adopting the Wikiquote:Limits on quotations policy). ~ Ningauble 18:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)