Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. Rather, the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars ...
Some articles by definition, express a point of view, in which case I propose that a neutral point of view (NPOV), has a slightly different meaning as follows: . For a general article: (existing policy) Neutral Point of View means as described in policy, and loosely means to (a) provide a balanced article in (b) a neutral manner.
In philosophy, a point of view is a specific attitude or manner through which a person thinks about something. [1] This figurative usage of the expression dates back to 1730. [ 1 ] In this meaning, the usage is synonymous with one of the meanings of the term perspective [ 2 ] [ 3 ] (also epistemic perspective ).
Perspective-taking is the act of perceiving a situation or understanding a concept from an alternative point of view, such as that of another individual. [1]A vast amount of scientific literature suggests that perspective-taking is crucial to human development [2] and that it may lead to a variety of beneficial outcomes.
Welcome to WikiProject Alternative Views! This project aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant "alternative views"—those theories, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations which, though notable, lack widespread acceptance, and which may challenge a "dominant view" which does have such acceptance.
“POV” is also a way to contextualize an overall experience despite seeing it from the vantage point of an observer. For example, video captions such as, “POV: You’re a cashier confronting ...
For example, Evolution as fact and theory is a sub-article of Evolution, and Creation–evolution controversy is a sub-article of Creationism. This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article.
The concept that there is a "right" answer to most issues under debate presupposes (a) the existence of a Perfectly Objective Truth in the first place, and (b) that someone knows that Perfectly Objective Truth well enough to provide the "right" answer. Those assumptions are in flagrant violation of anything like a neutral point of view.