
#REDIRECT Point of view
A point of view, viewpoint or POV, is the following: *On a given topic, a point of view is a cognitive perspective. See perspective (cognitive). *In literature, a point of view is the related experience of the narrator. See point of view (literature). *In Wikipedia, ''point of view'' has several meanings: see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#But_POV_is_bad.2C_isn.27t_it.3F and Wikipedia:POV. *Viewpoint (Arcade game) is a scrolling shooter video game released for Neo Geo and SEGA Genesis. *A video game developer. See Point of View (developer).
A point of view (POV) in Wikipedia is an often important part of articles which treat controversial subjects. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the majors points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "WP:NPOV" policy. Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: * Who advocates the point of view * What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.) ==Usage note== Some contributors to Wikipedia abuse the term ''POV'', taking it as an antonym to "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view", implying that a particular article or passage is affected by an editor's point of view. This is not what the term POV means, and should be avoided. The term they are groping for is "biased". Recall co-founder Larry Sanger's prescription that Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects. ==Biased writing== A Wikipedian contributor might be unaware that his writing is biased, if he harbors (possibly unconscious) assumptions about the popular opinion of one's area, country, culture, language, ethnicity, etc. Generally, this comes out in one of several ways: * writing from your local perspective on non-local pages * excessive assumption of local readership when writing about a topic specific to your locality * and, of course, opinion and bias Of course any article can be "unbalanced" due to the fact that contributors have more knowledge of, or are more interested in, particular aspects of a subject than in other aspects. This is not "wrong", but making such an article more balanced is encouraged. For example, suppose there is an article about highways that is mostly about the US. A German who encounters this should not complain about Americocentrism, but alter the article to approach the subject from a wider perspective: what can be said about highways in general, that applies worldwide? Begin the article with this, and then discuss the specific variations in different countries. == Nationalism == On the English Wikipedia, several sources of bias to watch out for are: * US nationalism: perhaps more common due to the number of Americans editing on Wikipedia * UK nationalism: especially found in articles adapted from the 1911 Britannica and similar out-of-copyright sources Some simple examples * an article explaining a law without mentioning in which country the law applies * an article about a local custom, such as Thanksgiving, that assumes the reader knows "the basics", such as what it actually is (a national holiday) and when it occurs (I have no idea, I'm British!) * an article about Thanksgiving which assumes it is celebrated only in the United States == Assuming the obvious == Something else that you need to watch out for are obvious facts which are not necessarily obvious to people from other areas. Examples include the level of support a political movement has or does not have, the names of the movements, demographic facts, geographic facts. == English language == Also be careful to avoid an English-speaking Point Of View. Although country-specific and similar POVs are often easy to spot, this can be harder to spot. While there is a strong argument to simply present history and politics in English the way they have always been presented in that language, there's a much stronger argument for sticking to neutral point of view, and avoiding reports of long-standing English cultural assumptions as fact. For one thing there are many people in Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Caribbean nations such as Cayman Islands, etc., who speak English as a first language, who do not share these. In South America, the EU, Russia, India, Japan, China, etc., many people learn English very early, often simultaneously with another tongue. It is simply wrong to believe that everyone reading an article in English will understand UK or US cultural assumptions or find it non-controversial to make certain statements or use certain terms: *Vocabulary - :simple: articles are available for those learning, or with poor mastery of, English. In the main English wikipedia, there is still a need to avoid professional jargon and to keep language as simple and direct as the accurate treatment of subject matter permits. Unusual or unfamiliar usages need to be briefly disambiguated: sometimes a single modifier suffices: "The scientist Marie Curie...". *Names or dates of conflicts used in English speaking sources sometimes poorly match those used in some other culture; it's critical to get the dates right for the context, and include as many alternative terms as necessary. The extent of this obviously depends on the context of the article. For example, "George VI was King of Britain during World War II (1939–1945)" but "Stalin was head of the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War (World War II) from 1941 to 1945".#Footnotes *Assuming that the term "British" includes the peoples of British Colonies. *Accounts of conflicts and their outcomes providing the interpretation of the side most English-speaking nations supported. *Derogatory accounts of other cultures, especially Islam, India and China. This is particularly prevalent in older sources. *Statements that a territory was "discovered" or "settled" when in fact it was visited or colonialism. It is better to write "Balboa was the first European to see the Pacific Ocean" than "Balboa discovered the Pacific Ocean". == Other points == Other key points to watch for when adapting material from country-specific sources: *Spelling: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style for current recommendations on English spelling. *Names of conflicts used in your locality (the US, UK, etc.) may not be the same as those on the list of wars, and may reflect a local viewpoint. *Avoid biased comments about other countries. This rule, of course, applies in all directions. *Units of measure: Use the units that are most appropriate to the context and, where appropriate, place an alternate form in parenthesis right after the units (for example; an article on a mountain in the United States should have its elevation given in feet with the approximate number of meters given right after). However always use the measured form first and leave the converted form in parentheses (otherwise you are introducing error in the numbers!). The converted form should also ''not'' have more significant digits than the measured form (this gives a false impression of precision). == Other areas where POV comes into play == In addition to language and geographic issues, it is important to avoid other types of assumptions or biases about people. Some examples of biases to avoid are: *Assuming all people are heterosexual, e.g., assuming that any sexual activity carries a pregnancy risk, assuming that a child lives with parents of different genders, assuming that dating involves people of different genders *Referring to people with disabilities using marginalizing terms, such as referring to people as "patients" when not specifically describing the routine of a hospital A good rule of thumb in avoiding POV is to never refer to someone in a way you would not want to see used to refer to yourself or a loved one. When writing something such as "the park has had a lot of problems with the homeless," consider that these "homeless" are people and would not want to be described this way. An improvement might be something such as "after the park was renovated, park officials began taking steps to show that individuals who were homeless were not welcome there." Removing Bias in Language: Disabilities http://www.apastyle.org/disabilities.html Removing Bias in Language: Sexuality http://www.apastyle.org/sexuality.html ==Pseudonyms== ''Main article: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.'' In articles about works of art, games, TV series and other subjects without estimable values, Wiki editors will often try to pass on POV opinions by writing under a pseudonym (e.g., "some fans think Allan Holdsworth is the greatest guitarist ever"). Unless you can provide a survey, a review or any similar type of source for your praise, it does not belong in a Wikipedia article. The correct way to phrase the sentence about Holdsworth would be: "in 1999, the readers of Jazz Guitarist voted Allan Holdsworth top guitarist of the year" (this is just an example, the magazine does not actually exist). == See also == * Wikipedia:Pages needing attention * Wikipedia:NPOV dispute * Wikipedia:List of controversial issues ==Footnotes== # Since most readers will be more familiar with the term 'World War II' than 'Great Patriotic War' it is probably better to explain the usage, even in articles about the Soviet Union.
EntmootsOfTrolls would have liked this article to be part of User:EntmootsOfTrolls/WikiProject Body, Cognition and Senses, which provides guidelines for articles on those topics, and seeks stronger cross-linkage and cross-cultural treatment of all of these topics. ------- This article could do with some more explanation of the subject-object problem as it applies to literary choice of point of view, and keeping it consistent - notably the error some writers make of assuming God's eye view (the "omniscient narrator"). Some of the more literary aspects of perspective could also possibly be shifted here, but in general, that should be the general article, and takes the historical view, rather than the more practical and immediate view of this article. _______________ Actually, I really don´t like this acronym, ´cause the oppostie of NPOV should be PPOV (if any)
So many of the entries in the On This Day pages, or whatever they're called, are Americocentric. For example, May 24 "1968 The Gateway Arch, in St. Louis, Missouri, was dedicated." For all someone in Nigeria would know, it could be a city and state in Surinam. Sometimes one gets the impression that American editors forget that theirs is one of 190 nations. How about requiring that the nation's name ''always'' follow the city name? Also, many of the listings of people in those pages (apart from the fact that many of them are non-entity American pop culture celebs) only refer to their nationality if they are ''not'' American. So, for example, Dean Martin will be a 'singer' but John Farnham will be an 'Australian singer' (these are hypothetical examples only). It does seem like linguistic apartheid. I really feel that the style guidelines should be stricter on these matters, and Wikipedia should be more vigilant aganist Americocentrism as a whole, as it's still widespread depite the fact that many readers are trying to remove it (and to them, "thanks"). Pip Wilson This is a huge improvement. User:Trontonian 23:19, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC) Ignore that comment. I was confused by all the page-shuffling. But the content of this article makes Wikipedia:USPOV redundant. National bias is not restricted to articles written by Americans. User:Trontonian 14:54, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC) ==international english wiki== I might have missed it, but i have been looking for a discussion about an international wiki. The point is that the current english wiki is in my experience culturally bound to mainly the US and the UK. When i read the en-wiki, i sometimes meet typical us-views and issues, and i feel that i should not interfere with my dutch background - i probably don't understand the culturally bound subtilities, although i do understand the language. Let's face it: objectivity means in fact inter-subjectivity and the same text can sound objective for one culture and very subjective for another. Also there sometimes are problems with international linking: the definition of terms in different cultures is not precisely the same, causing trouble with international linking of adjacent subjects Am i the only one who feels the need of a real international wiki? The "simple english" is no option, it is there for another purpose. --User:Taka 13:36, 28 May 2004 (UTC) : The English language is spoken as a first-language by primarily the US and the UK (and former colonies...!), so their citizens contribute most, and any English language Wikipedia is likely to suffer a bias in favour of those cultures. Any skewed writing should, in theory, be temporary, because Wikipedia has a policy on avoiding bias. If you find an article to be "subjective", it's likely that it is not yet written from a Wikipedia:NPOV (NPOV) and needs work to become so. Your contributions to these articles would be much appreciated in fixing things, ''especially'' because you are not from a US/UK background, and just pointing out cultural bias would be helpful. User:Matt Crypto 14:09, 28 May 2004 (UTC) :I'd agree with Matt. As I understand it, the English Wikipedia is intended to be an international English Wikipedia. Any issues of cultural bias that exist on this English Wikipedia will also exist on any other. Unless, for example, we were to start a Dutch English Wikipedia. Instead, please help us to create an English Wikipedia that is more international. -User:Rholton 14:29, 28 May 2004 (UTC) :About the difficulty of international linking--that can actually be a good learning experience (see Talk:Comic book). I agree, and I'll admit that my presence probably makes things worse, just because I mainly know about U.S. topics--that's why we need people like you. This is not the USpedia. User:Meelar 14:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC) :All we can do is make sure there are as many non-Americans as possible in the project. User:Chameleon 14:38, 28 May 2004 (UTC) ::I have the feeling that a significant portion of the wikipedians in the english wikipedia are not from the US or UK. My guess would be around 30%, and while US-bias may be a problem sometimes, I don't think it's a big issue. -- User:Chris 73 | User talk:Chris 73 14:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC) Thanks for the responses. I will consider the English wiki to be international. The point is that I could not find anything about it. But the Talk:Comic book discussion is a really good example of how things (apparently) are meant. --User:Taka 15:10, 28 May 2004 (UTC) : There's some mention of systematic bias — including cultural — here: Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Systemic_bias User:Matt Crypto 15:20, 28 May 2004 (UTC) : A search with Google gave 38 occurencies of ''"us-centric"'' at Wikipedia. A quick glance gave the impression that no-one says it's good, ...but in practice it might well turn out somewhat differently. Already the linguistic handicap makes contributors with other mother tongues to seem less authoritative and reliable. Then there are many more of the Anglo-Saxons, of course. /M.L. == True or false?? == True or false: Americocentrism means the POV for American Wikipedians. What is the European equivalent?? User:66.245.17.10 02:15, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Eurocentrism. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 16:36, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC) == Heterosexual POV == A while ago, in the history of the Star article, someone talked about a kind of POV that I don't think has been talked about before, called Heterosexual POV. Can anyone discuss about it?? User:66.32.244.71 01:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) ==World War II== * ''Accounts of conflicts and their outcomes providing the interpretation of the side most English-speaking nations supported.'' What about when All English speaking countries were involved in one side of a war? I do not see how it is possible to avoid a view of the war from the Allied side in the naming of articles if they are to use common English names. For example the division of the world into theatres in World War II follows the divisions used by the Allies in World War II and these divisions were usually based on the distribution of men on the ground. The articles on the Pacific War divide the conflict into three theatres which correspond to the Allies theatres not to Japanese definitions. From an Allied perspective the fighting in Burma took place in the "South East Asian Theatre". From the perspective of the Japanese it could have taken place in the "Western Theatre" but most people English would be surprised to see the fighting of Burma appearing in an article with that name. There is no move to rename the "Western Front" to the "European Northwestern Front" so that people from none English-speaking nations understand the term. Neither Italy or Norway are included in the Wikipedia definition of the "Western Front" in WWII, which is to do with how the Allied commands were organized and how most sources are structured. But from a German perspective they may have been. Should en.Wikipedia take things like this into account when naming articles or not? If they do then they move away from common usage in English. So what is better to have names which are familiar to most English speakers or names which carry no English speaking cultural POV? User:Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Types of POV== #A point of view on a controversial subject #A perspective based on one's geographical or academic area #Biased writing ===Controversial positions=== When discussing a controversial topic, a ''point of view'' is a position taken - either on facts or values or policy. For example, every 4 years in America voters elect the president. They pick the one who shares their POV most closely. The candidates vie for popular support, expressing and defending their POV in speeches, etc. ===Perspective=== I approach everything from a software engineer's perspective. IF this, THEN that. Many writers describe things from the limited perspective of their geographical or cultural background. When describing a motorcar, we are not thinking of getting our points across to a primitive tribesman who's never seen one - or even heard of the concept of powered transportation. American and European writers may sometimes lose sight of the fact that their readers have had different experiences: hence the terms ''Eurocentric'' and ''Americentric'' (or "USian"). Or in describing a grocery store, Americans may assume that the checkout counter is also the cashier, whereas in Russia (as everyone knows) there are two separate lines. ===Bias=== The term ''NPOV'' refers (in an official sense) to Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View policy, but in casual writing (nearly all talk pages and mailing list posts are casual!) we often use ''NPOV'' to mean "neutral" or "unbiased". This usage has naturally given rise to use of the term ''POV'' as an antonym. This can cause confusion - most of it inadvertent, but some people exploit this confusion. We all agree that biased writing has no place in Wikipedia. When advocates take different sides on an issue, we generally pride ourselves on expressing the disagreement fairly. We try to give a balanced account of what each side believes, and why they believe it (or at least the reasons they give in defense of their viewpoint). ---- I could use some help, incorporating the above passage (which I wrote) into the article. Assuming, of course, that it makes sense! User:Ed Poor user talk:Ed Poor 16:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Point_of_view:
Point-Of-View_gun
Point-of-View_gun
Point-of-view_gun
Point-of-view_gun
Point_of_View
Point_of_view
Point_of_view
Point_of_view
Point_of_view
Point_of_view_(literature)
Point_Of_View_(POV)_Gun
Point_Of_View_Gun
Point_of_View_Gun
Point_of_view_gun
Point_of_View_Shot
Point_of_view_shot
Point of View
#REDIRECT Point of view
Point of view
A point of view, viewpoint or POV, is the following: *On a given topic, a point of view is a cognitive perspective. See perspective (cognitive). *In literature, a point of view is the related experience of the narrator. See point of view (literature). *In Wikipedia, ''point of view'' has several meanings: see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#But_POV_is_bad.2C_isn.27t_it.3F and Wikipedia:POV. *Viewpoint (Arcade game) is a scrolling shooter video game released for Neo Geo and SEGA Genesis. *A video game developer. See Point of View (developer).
Point of view
A point of view (POV) in Wikipedia is an often important part of articles which treat controversial subjects. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the majors points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "WP:NPOV" policy. Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: * Who advocates the point of view * What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.) ==Usage note== Some contributors to Wikipedia abuse the term ''POV'', taking it as an antonym to "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view", implying that a particular article or passage is affected by an editor's point of view. This is not what the term POV means, and should be avoided. The term they are groping for is "biased". Recall co-founder Larry Sanger's prescription that Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects. ==Biased writing== A Wikipedian contributor might be unaware that his writing is biased, if he harbors (possibly unconscious) assumptions about the popular opinion of one's area, country, culture, language, ethnicity, etc. Generally, this comes out in one of several ways: * writing from your local perspective on non-local pages * excessive assumption of local readership when writing about a topic specific to your locality * and, of course, opinion and bias Of course any article can be "unbalanced" due to the fact that contributors have more knowledge of, or are more interested in, particular aspects of a subject than in other aspects. This is not "wrong", but making such an article more balanced is encouraged. For example, suppose there is an article about highways that is mostly about the US. A German who encounters this should not complain about Americocentrism, but alter the article to approach the subject from a wider perspective: what can be said about highways in general, that applies worldwide? Begin the article with this, and then discuss the specific variations in different countries. == Nationalism == On the English Wikipedia, several sources of bias to watch out for are: * US nationalism: perhaps more common due to the number of Americans editing on Wikipedia * UK nationalism: especially found in articles adapted from the 1911 Britannica and similar out-of-copyright sources Some simple examples * an article explaining a law without mentioning in which country the law applies * an article about a local custom, such as Thanksgiving, that assumes the reader knows "the basics", such as what it actually is (a national holiday) and when it occurs (I have no idea, I'm British!) * an article about Thanksgiving which assumes it is celebrated only in the United States == Assuming the obvious == Something else that you need to watch out for are obvious facts which are not necessarily obvious to people from other areas. Examples include the level of support a political movement has or does not have, the names of the movements, demographic facts, geographic facts. == English language == Also be careful to avoid an English-speaking Point Of View. Although country-specific and similar POVs are often easy to spot, this can be harder to spot. While there is a strong argument to simply present history and politics in English the way they have always been presented in that language, there's a much stronger argument for sticking to neutral point of view, and avoiding reports of long-standing English cultural assumptions as fact. For one thing there are many people in Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Caribbean nations such as Cayman Islands, etc., who speak English as a first language, who do not share these. In South America, the EU, Russia, India, Japan, China, etc., many people learn English very early, often simultaneously with another tongue. It is simply wrong to believe that everyone reading an article in English will understand UK or US cultural assumptions or find it non-controversial to make certain statements or use certain terms: *Vocabulary - :simple: articles are available for those learning, or with poor mastery of, English. In the main English wikipedia, there is still a need to avoid professional jargon and to keep language as simple and direct as the accurate treatment of subject matter permits. Unusual or unfamiliar usages need to be briefly disambiguated: sometimes a single modifier suffices: "The scientist Marie Curie...". *Names or dates of conflicts used in English speaking sources sometimes poorly match those used in some other culture; it's critical to get the dates right for the context, and include as many alternative terms as necessary. The extent of this obviously depends on the context of the article. For example, "George VI was King of Britain during World War II (1939–1945)" but "Stalin was head of the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War (World War II) from 1941 to 1945".#Footnotes *Assuming that the term "British" includes the peoples of British Colonies. *Accounts of conflicts and their outcomes providing the interpretation of the side most English-speaking nations supported. *Derogatory accounts of other cultures, especially Islam, India and China. This is particularly prevalent in older sources. *Statements that a territory was "discovered" or "settled" when in fact it was visited or colonialism. It is better to write "Balboa was the first European to see the Pacific Ocean" than "Balboa discovered the Pacific Ocean". == Other points == Other key points to watch for when adapting material from country-specific sources: *Spelling: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style for current recommendations on English spelling. *Names of conflicts used in your locality (the US, UK, etc.) may not be the same as those on the list of wars, and may reflect a local viewpoint. *Avoid biased comments about other countries. This rule, of course, applies in all directions. *Units of measure: Use the units that are most appropriate to the context and, where appropriate, place an alternate form in parenthesis right after the units (for example; an article on a mountain in the United States should have its elevation given in feet with the approximate number of meters given right after). However always use the measured form first and leave the converted form in parentheses (otherwise you are introducing error in the numbers!). The converted form should also ''not'' have more significant digits than the measured form (this gives a false impression of precision). == Other areas where POV comes into play == In addition to language and geographic issues, it is important to avoid other types of assumptions or biases about people. Some examples of biases to avoid are: *Assuming all people are heterosexual, e.g., assuming that any sexual activity carries a pregnancy risk, assuming that a child lives with parents of different genders, assuming that dating involves people of different genders *Referring to people with disabilities using marginalizing terms, such as referring to people as "patients" when not specifically describing the routine of a hospital A good rule of thumb in avoiding POV is to never refer to someone in a way you would not want to see used to refer to yourself or a loved one. When writing something such as "the park has had a lot of problems with the homeless," consider that these "homeless" are people and would not want to be described this way. An improvement might be something such as "after the park was renovated, park officials began taking steps to show that individuals who were homeless were not welcome there." Removing Bias in Language: Disabilities http://www.apastyle.org/disabilities.html Removing Bias in Language: Sexuality http://www.apastyle.org/sexuality.html ==Pseudonyms== ''Main article: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.'' In articles about works of art, games, TV series and other subjects without estimable values, Wiki editors will often try to pass on POV opinions by writing under a pseudonym (e.g., "some fans think Allan Holdsworth is the greatest guitarist ever"). Unless you can provide a survey, a review or any similar type of source for your praise, it does not belong in a Wikipedia article. The correct way to phrase the sentence about Holdsworth would be: "in 1999, the readers of Jazz Guitarist voted Allan Holdsworth top guitarist of the year" (this is just an example, the magazine does not actually exist). == See also == * Wikipedia:Pages needing attention * Wikipedia:NPOV dispute * Wikipedia:List of controversial issues ==Footnotes== # Since most readers will be more familiar with the term 'World War II' than 'Great Patriotic War' it is probably better to explain the usage, even in articles about the Soviet Union.
Point of view
EntmootsOfTrolls would have liked this article to be part of User:EntmootsOfTrolls/WikiProject Body, Cognition and Senses, which provides guidelines for articles on those topics, and seeks stronger cross-linkage and cross-cultural treatment of all of these topics. ------- This article could do with some more explanation of the subject-object problem as it applies to literary choice of point of view, and keeping it consistent - notably the error some writers make of assuming God's eye view (the "omniscient narrator"). Some of the more literary aspects of perspective could also possibly be shifted here, but in general, that should be the general article, and takes the historical view, rather than the more practical and immediate view of this article. _______________ Actually, I really don´t like this acronym, ´cause the oppostie of NPOV should be PPOV (if any)
Point of view
So many of the entries in the On This Day pages, or whatever they're called, are Americocentric. For example, May 24 "1968 The Gateway Arch, in St. Louis, Missouri, was dedicated." For all someone in Nigeria would know, it could be a city and state in Surinam. Sometimes one gets the impression that American editors forget that theirs is one of 190 nations. How about requiring that the nation's name ''always'' follow the city name? Also, many of the listings of people in those pages (apart from the fact that many of them are non-entity American pop culture celebs) only refer to their nationality if they are ''not'' American. So, for example, Dean Martin will be a 'singer' but John Farnham will be an 'Australian singer' (these are hypothetical examples only). It does seem like linguistic apartheid. I really feel that the style guidelines should be stricter on these matters, and Wikipedia should be more vigilant aganist Americocentrism as a whole, as it's still widespread depite the fact that many readers are trying to remove it (and to them, "thanks"). Pip Wilson This is a huge improvement. User:Trontonian 23:19, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC) Ignore that comment. I was confused by all the page-shuffling. But the content of this article makes Wikipedia:USPOV redundant. National bias is not restricted to articles written by Americans. User:Trontonian 14:54, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC) ==international english wiki== I might have missed it, but i have been looking for a discussion about an international wiki. The point is that the current english wiki is in my experience culturally bound to mainly the US and the UK. When i read the en-wiki, i sometimes meet typical us-views and issues, and i feel that i should not interfere with my dutch background - i probably don't understand the culturally bound subtilities, although i do understand the language. Let's face it: objectivity means in fact inter-subjectivity and the same text can sound objective for one culture and very subjective for another. Also there sometimes are problems with international linking: the definition of terms in different cultures is not precisely the same, causing trouble with international linking of adjacent subjects Am i the only one who feels the need of a real international wiki? The "simple english" is no option, it is there for another purpose. --User:Taka 13:36, 28 May 2004 (UTC) : The English language is spoken as a first-language by primarily the US and the UK (and former colonies...!), so their citizens contribute most, and any English language Wikipedia is likely to suffer a bias in favour of those cultures. Any skewed writing should, in theory, be temporary, because Wikipedia has a policy on avoiding bias. If you find an article to be "subjective", it's likely that it is not yet written from a Wikipedia:NPOV (NPOV) and needs work to become so. Your contributions to these articles would be much appreciated in fixing things, ''especially'' because you are not from a US/UK background, and just pointing out cultural bias would be helpful. User:Matt Crypto 14:09, 28 May 2004 (UTC) :I'd agree with Matt. As I understand it, the English Wikipedia is intended to be an international English Wikipedia. Any issues of cultural bias that exist on this English Wikipedia will also exist on any other. Unless, for example, we were to start a Dutch English Wikipedia. Instead, please help us to create an English Wikipedia that is more international. -User:Rholton 14:29, 28 May 2004 (UTC) :About the difficulty of international linking--that can actually be a good learning experience (see Talk:Comic book). I agree, and I'll admit that my presence probably makes things worse, just because I mainly know about U.S. topics--that's why we need people like you. This is not the USpedia. User:Meelar 14:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC) :All we can do is make sure there are as many non-Americans as possible in the project. User:Chameleon 14:38, 28 May 2004 (UTC) ::I have the feeling that a significant portion of the wikipedians in the english wikipedia are not from the US or UK. My guess would be around 30%, and while US-bias may be a problem sometimes, I don't think it's a big issue. -- User:Chris 73 | User talk:Chris 73 14:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC) Thanks for the responses. I will consider the English wiki to be international. The point is that I could not find anything about it. But the Talk:Comic book discussion is a really good example of how things (apparently) are meant. --User:Taka 15:10, 28 May 2004 (UTC) : There's some mention of systematic bias — including cultural — here: Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Systemic_bias User:Matt Crypto 15:20, 28 May 2004 (UTC) : A search with Google gave 38 occurencies of ''"us-centric"'' at Wikipedia. A quick glance gave the impression that no-one says it's good, ...but in practice it might well turn out somewhat differently. Already the linguistic handicap makes contributors with other mother tongues to seem less authoritative and reliable. Then there are many more of the Anglo-Saxons, of course. /M.L. == True or false?? == True or false: Americocentrism means the POV for American Wikipedians. What is the European equivalent?? User:66.245.17.10 02:15, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Eurocentrism. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 16:36, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC) == Heterosexual POV == A while ago, in the history of the Star article, someone talked about a kind of POV that I don't think has been talked about before, called Heterosexual POV. Can anyone discuss about it?? User:66.32.244.71 01:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) ==World War II== * ''Accounts of conflicts and their outcomes providing the interpretation of the side most English-speaking nations supported.'' What about when All English speaking countries were involved in one side of a war? I do not see how it is possible to avoid a view of the war from the Allied side in the naming of articles if they are to use common English names. For example the division of the world into theatres in World War II follows the divisions used by the Allies in World War II and these divisions were usually based on the distribution of men on the ground. The articles on the Pacific War divide the conflict into three theatres which correspond to the Allies theatres not to Japanese definitions. From an Allied perspective the fighting in Burma took place in the "South East Asian Theatre". From the perspective of the Japanese it could have taken place in the "Western Theatre" but most people English would be surprised to see the fighting of Burma appearing in an article with that name. There is no move to rename the "Western Front" to the "European Northwestern Front" so that people from none English-speaking nations understand the term. Neither Italy or Norway are included in the Wikipedia definition of the "Western Front" in WWII, which is to do with how the Allied commands were organized and how most sources are structured. But from a German perspective they may have been. Should en.Wikipedia take things like this into account when naming articles or not? If they do then they move away from common usage in English. So what is better to have names which are familiar to most English speakers or names which carry no English speaking cultural POV? User:Philip Baird Shearer 09:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Types of POV== #A point of view on a controversial subject #A perspective based on one's geographical or academic area #Biased writing ===Controversial positions=== When discussing a controversial topic, a ''point of view'' is a position taken - either on facts or values or policy. For example, every 4 years in America voters elect the president. They pick the one who shares their POV most closely. The candidates vie for popular support, expressing and defending their POV in speeches, etc. ===Perspective=== I approach everything from a software engineer's perspective. IF this, THEN that. Many writers describe things from the limited perspective of their geographical or cultural background. When describing a motorcar, we are not thinking of getting our points across to a primitive tribesman who's never seen one - or even heard of the concept of powered transportation. American and European writers may sometimes lose sight of the fact that their readers have had different experiences: hence the terms ''Eurocentric'' and ''Americentric'' (or "USian"). Or in describing a grocery store, Americans may assume that the checkout counter is also the cashier, whereas in Russia (as everyone knows) there are two separate lines. ===Bias=== The term ''NPOV'' refers (in an official sense) to Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View policy, but in casual writing (nearly all talk pages and mailing list posts are casual!) we often use ''NPOV'' to mean "neutral" or "unbiased". This usage has naturally given rise to use of the term ''POV'' as an antonym. This can cause confusion - most of it inadvertent, but some people exploit this confusion. We all agree that biased writing has no place in Wikipedia. When advocates take different sides on an issue, we generally pride ourselves on expressing the disagreement fairly. We try to give a balanced account of what each side believes, and why they believe it (or at least the reasons they give in defense of their viewpoint). ---- I could use some help, incorporating the above passage (which I wrote) into the article. Assuming, of course, that it makes sense! User:Ed Poor user talk:Ed Poor 16:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
P
PA | PB | PC | PD | PE | PF | PG | PH | PI | PJ | PK | PL | PM | PN | PO | PR | PS | PT | PU | PW | PX | PY | PZ |Words begining with Point_of_view:
Point-Of-View_gun
Point-of-View_gun
Point-of-view_gun
Point-of-view_gun
Point_of_View
Point_of_view
Point_of_view
Point_of_view
Point_of_view
Point_of_view_(literature)
Point_Of_View_(POV)_Gun
Point_Of_View_Gun
Point_of_View_Gun
Point_of_view_gun
Point_of_View_Shot
Point_of_view_shot
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
