GetWiki:Positive Point of View

A Positive Point of View (PPOV) means presenting a subject or concept from the positive perspective of a proponent, that is, a favourable, affirmative light - as in to “posit” an idea. Yet, PPOV also encourages equally critical perspectives to be presented. Criticism of a subject or concept can be placed in sections within the article on that subject or concept, or on a separate, well-linked critical, or “against” page. PPOV is used on GetWiki's information/encyclopedic pages, but is not required for topic papers, journalistic articles, books, forums, meta pages, or protected documents (ie. non info/encyclopedic pages).

A so-called “neutral” (NPOV) policy, such as Pseudopedia's, strives to represent all perspectives in a balanced, unified manner. However, all too often, NPOV leads to endless bickering and “edit wars” over what is the balanced view, or at best, it leads to a cacophony of “hate bot” wars and petty criticism based on fallacy and calumny (pick just about any page in the Humanities and Sciences over on the 'Pedia and you'll see endless negativity masquerading as NPOV). By contrast, PPOV allows each perspective to be represented fully and enthusiastically, even passionately, without having a page read like a schizophrenic mess of counter citations and armchair “peashooting” opinions. If a typical “pro-and-con” treatment is necessary within an article and satisfies the relevant sides in a given debate, then nothing more is required. We don't need 200 citations from fringe sources to “prove” something is “wrong” - we need truth. But, sometimes various perspectives don't coexist in a single article, so that is why each can have separate articles, each giving their various points of view.

What PPOV encourages is the abandonment of the forced constraints of viewpoints which comes from pretending a wiki-website is somehow an “encyclopedia”. Does anyone still fall for that one? In seeking neutrality, or authority, NPOV only produces disagreements over perceived bias in articles, and it encourages discord and conflicts about the very existence of some articles. This is another reason why The Pseudopedia is such a mess.

On GetWiki, we need not suffer these problems. If we wish to write/edit an article, for example, about the beauty of “Intelligent Design”, then we can also go ahead with an “Against Intelligent Design” page. We just need to be prepared to write/edit an article (or section in an article) from an alternate view, strongly supporting the complete opposite view. Google will pick up each equally well. This policy ensures that any other connections in the knowledge presented on GetWiki are easily found, and relevant views can coexist. This is a better form of discussion than trying to cram conflicting viewpoints into every single sentence.

guidelines

• “Positive” POV means that each sentence, paragraph or section, or article as a whole, need not be “balanced”, “muted”, or “neutral”, but can be seen as endorsing, or positing the POV relevant to the passage
• An article called “Theory A” needs to be “positive” overall with respect to that theory, while an article called “Against Theory A” needs to be “positive” overall with respect to Theory A's refutation(s) presented
• An article called “Theory A” with a section within called “Critical Views”, needs to be “positive” overall to Theory A, while the critical section needs to be “positive” about the refutation(s) presented
• We use Positive views for information/encyclopedic articles, “Forking” them or sectioning them for critical viewpoints as desired
• We do not strive for phony “neutral” views within articles, especially theoretical or controversial topics, because the true complexity of things will almost always be lost - we're not “dumbing down” here
• We allow that papers, books, journalistic articles, and other discussions are exempt from PPOV, but that disagreement with them is still encouraged (probably in separate articles), so that editor discussions and reader discoveries can enriched