Wowpedia talk:Neutrality policy/Archive

← Return to WoWWiki talk:Policy/Neutral point of view

See NPOV.
 * Proposal:

Yes:
NOTE: This policy vote has met the ratification minimum (5 votes), the ratification ratio (at least 3:1 in favor), and the ratification time (7 days), so it has been officially adopted as Wowpedia policy. --Fandyllic 7:00 AM HST 9 May 2006

Comments

 * 1) Thanks to Kaso for proposing this. This policy would fall under the overall writing policy. --Fandyllic 12:49 PM PDT 24 Apr 2006
 * 2) While this is a good idea (after all, I did vote for it), I'm wondering as to the application. On what articles could NPOV be placed? Also, the tag could stand to look a little nicer. Schmidt 15:32, 24 April 2006 (EDT)
 * If you don't like the way the NPOV tag looks, make it nicer! :-P ;-) --Fandyllic 3:40 PM PDT 24 Apr 2006
 * 1) Well, Server:Frostmane was the what made me suggest this, it had various people trolling other's guilds etc, I thought it would be better to expand more than just personal attacks, for example Furbolg Rumour, Pandaren Rumor, Draenei Rumor all could do with some neutrality. Ideally NPOV would not be needed and the policy would just stand as "Write in NPOV and edit any that are not" type guideline, but i realize that some users will not want to, or not be knowledgeable in the field to amend the article so i wanted some way to bring attention to the articles. Also Am i allowed to vote for my own Proposal? (apologies if this doesnt follow the standard vote commenting standards, i'm new to all this. Kaso 16:05, 24 April 2006 (EDT)
 * Generally, anyone who proposes something votes for it. Schmidt 16:20, 24 April 2006 (EDT)
 * 1) Whilst I would like to vote for this at the moment I cannot, as, in my view, the proposal lacks sufficient rigour. The quote from Wikipaediaa is a tautology - my view is that we need a clearer basic deffinition. I would like to propose the following : "A neutral point of view is one that is objective, balanced and does not express opinions but mearly reports them. An 'on the one hand ... on the other hand' approach is best when dealing with controversial subjects." then a relevent example written in both styes should be included to illustrate the subject.--Spliner 06:53, 7 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Looks like your a little late, it has already reached the 'adopted' state although no one has changed the tag yet. My suggestions is to rewrite it the way you feel it should read, and start another vote to change (or if it is small enough change like just rewording the description so it is clearer or adding an example you can probably change it without a vote) --Ralthor 12:48, 7 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Spliner, your idea is perfectly valid and likely to be accepted, but I'd like to put the current description in place to have something for people to see as policy. Put your propsal at the top of this page (maybe in a section called "Vote on clarification of NPOV") and I'll turn it into a vote. --Fandyllic 7:03 AM HST 9 May 2006
 * Erhm... I personally don't see this as a problem. The policy remains "Articles shall have a neutral point of view", after all. Expanding on the explanation in a way that doesn't change the basic assumptions is fair game imo? It becomes nigh-impossible to improve upon wording in poorly-written policies otherwise. (And frankly, I've performed dozens of policy violations if this is so >.< ) --Mikk 16:23, 4 June 2006 (EDT)