|This policy has been adopted.|
The adoption vote for this policy was moved to WoWWiki_talk:Policy/Neutral_point_of_view/Archive.
I've added some additions to clarify what WoWWiki's definition of NPOV means, that it is applied only to fan opinions, rather than official Blizzard information. The clarification also points out a currently enforced administrative policy, as a warning to anyone that would try to remove official information in order to positively support or villify a topic.Baggins 17:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's some concern in the community about the new changes, but it's more of a style issue than a NPOV issue. I think most of the fuss is over how articles directly tell the user what to believe (e.g. "[The Scarlet Crusade is] a lawful and currently evil religious organization [...]"). This is how Blizzard presents the material, but it may be more effective to phrase it from a third person POV, e.g. "outsiders view the Scarlet Crusade as a evil religious organization because..." or "Horde and Alliance players are pitted against the Crusade because..." Part of Wikipedia's policy (Let the facts speak for themselves) echoes my thoughts. Sorry to use the SC as an example for the umpteenth time. :P
- Also, the Wikipedia quote on the policy page seems a moot point to our policy. We can't say NPOV is "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject" if our policy requires us to take Blizzard's stance on a subject, which is often not neutral. -- 20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you don't know how wikipedia' works, but any article on wiki can be supported with things that might not be viewed "as neutral" by various factions. I.E. quotes made by scientists or credible and verifiable people involved with a particular subject (researchers, writers, directors, authors, etc), or from other citeable and credible sources. What they don't want actually is people from 'off the street' going in and giving there own opinions. Personal opinions from an editor of a wiki can't be cited. Wikis want citations.Baggins 17:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Verifiability does not necessitate inclusion for information in an article. I can verify the statement "Hitler was evil" with countless credible citations, but the word "evil" isn't even found in his Wikipedia article (save for in the title of a TV series). If we truely want "Neutral Point of View" we should not be telling readers what to think and rather ought to tell them how information is presented (see above). Otherwise, this policy needs to be renamed to "Blizzard's Point of View" and all references to Wikipedia's NPOV should be removed to avoid confusion.-- 02:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Again it depends on the article you are discussing. Evil isn't really allowed on real-world subjects for NPOV purposes (although one can find exceptions, Wikipedia:albino), because facts can speak for themselves, or so one of the wikipedia policies goes. However its very different for material from fiction, and fantasy, and the character or race is said to be evil, then Wikipedia will use terms such as evil. I.E, Wikipedia:Skeletor. Skeletor is going to be called evil, because he was called evil by the stories and company that made him. Let's look at Wikipedia:Orc they are largely considered evil in society, even Tolkien considered them evil, so the article discusses this. A mythological or religious being like Wikipedia:Satan is called evil, because he is considered evil in culture.
- Wikipedia doesn't prevent the term being used where its applicable to the fiction being discussed, and relates to what the material specifically says. They don't twist or dismiss or hide the writings of the authors, or cultural heritage if "evil" (or other supposedly negative traits are used by the authors or creators of a particular subject), simply to make them into something they aren't. They give quotes by those authors, or cultural beliefs.
- I think the important distinction here, is fiction (fantasy and mythology) by definition is not considered "facts" (infact its the complete opposite of a fact, its the antonym of fact).
- In anycase, the real point is this isn't Wikipedia, this is WoWWiki and it has its own system. Please don't compare the two.Baggins 02:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- In anycase, the real point is this isn't Wikipedia, this is WoWWiki and it has its own system. Please don't compare the two. Can we please remove the references and links to Wikipedia from the policy then? -- 14:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with the removal, personally.Baggins 00:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)