| rdfs:comment
| - NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a guiding rule on the GarouMUSH Wiki. As many of the articles will pertain to characters, players, Wizards and so forth, the tone of articles should remain neutral and fair to events throughout. Presenting an issue from a character's point of view is, however, acceptable. This policy is non-negotiable, and is approved by the GarouWiki head honchos. Example: The following would be against this policy:
* 1: Moe became angry because Larry was being stupid, and hit him.
* 2: Moe thought Larry was being stupid, so he became angry and hit him.
- The NPOV or 'Nother Point Of View (aka Nazi Point Of View) is the view of Jimbo, the mythical confounder of Wikipedia. An article is said to violate NPOV if it makes a potentially factual assertion. As a teacher, Jimbo often was consulted on which of two points of view was correct, only to offer another point of view altogether.
* His opinion is that an article should present facts and state differing opinions on a subject side by side. Hereby, wacky opinions are avoided. Wacky opinions are those that are incompatible with those of anglos, especially Jimbo or the Non-cabal.
|
| abstract
| - NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a guiding rule on the GarouMUSH Wiki. As many of the articles will pertain to characters, players, Wizards and so forth, the tone of articles should remain neutral and fair to events throughout. Presenting an issue from a character's point of view is, however, acceptable. This policy is non-negotiable, and is approved by the GarouWiki head honchos. If you find an article you feel is not neutral in its tone, please flag it with the {{NPOV}} template and state your reasons for doing so in that article's talk page. When a consensus has been reached, the NPOV template may be removed and the questionable content modified. Example: The following would be against this policy:
* 1: Moe became angry because Larry was being stupid, and hit him. To correctly frame this sequence of events, it should be made clear that the one saw the other as stupid, not that the other had committed poor actions.
* 2: Moe thought Larry was being stupid, so he became angry and hit him. Even more preferable to this would be instead of simply stating that Larry was stupid, say what Larry was doing. This makes no judgement on whether Larry's actions were good or bad, but rather leaves it to the individual reader to decide. While number two is factually accurate, a partial or complete list of events would be more true to what happened.
* 3: Larry kept flicking off the waiter and insulting her mother. The waiter refused to serve the table anymore, and left their food undelivered. Moe became angry at Larry because of this, and hit him.
- The NPOV or 'Nother Point Of View (aka Nazi Point Of View) is the view of Jimbo, the mythical confounder of Wikipedia. An article is said to violate NPOV if it makes a potentially factual assertion. As a teacher, Jimbo often was consulted on which of two points of view was correct, only to offer another point of view altogether.
* His opinion is that an article should present facts and state differing opinions on a subject side by side. Hereby, wacky opinions are avoided. Wacky opinions are those that are incompatible with those of anglos, especially Jimbo or the Non-cabal. If the general public leaning is very contrary to the NPOV, a very elaborate sort of NPOV is needed: the VNPOV (Very 'Nother Point Of View). Here, the aim is to state the accepted view as concisely as possible (half a sentence), while enumerating a wide variety of alternate (batshit insane) possibilities, utterly confusing the reader and leading to the impression that the subject is very heavily disputed, diffuse, and not yet settled, and especially that no conclusions at all can be drawn. NPOV wiki articles are written in such a way that no bias not shared by the ruling clique is apparent. Articles with a NPOV are uninteresting and a waste of time. In evaluating competing revisions to an article, one written by a scholar specialising in the field should prevail over a collaborative effort by a dozen high school students who have a link to a Tripod web page confirming their version is an example of biased writing which should be revised, as Wikipedia espouses the archaic concept of "expertise" over "collective wisdom", which is the foundation of all knowledge in the Web 2.0 world.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)