|License||CC BY-SA 4.0|
|Translate to||Français, Español, Kiswahili, 中文, العربية, Русский, more|
|Export to||PDF, LaTeX, EPUB, ODT|
|Cite as Chris Watkins (2021). "Appropedia:Neutral point of view". Appropedia. Retrieved 2021-10-24.|
Neutral point of view (NPOV): Appropedia is supportive of appropriate technology and sustainable development. As such, Appropedia articles will usually be written from a point of view that is sympathetic to those concepts. Appropedia otherwise encourages a more or less NPOV depending on category. "How to" pages, for example, are usually easy to write from a NPOV. Project pages usually can be written from a NPOV, but may have sections where opinions come into play. Organization pages, and particularly User pages are reasonable places to express opinions. When deviating from a NPOV, it is important that ownership of the point of view is clear. That is usually straightforward on Organization and User pages, but should be explicitly declared in other content.
- Special Lemma: Appropedia is not a site for soap boxing (a truly slippery act). If you think that the current administration should be admonished for their policy on alternative pest control, use Appropedia to describe alternative pest control. Use some other site for dissin' da man.
- When deviating from a NPOV, it is important that ownership of the point of view is clear. That is usually straightforward on Organization and User pages, but should be explicitly declared in other content.
Appropedia also places a strong emphasis on scientific fact and rigor. Compared to Wikipedia, Appropedia relies more on the knowledge base of our community, and yet also has more of an interest in objective scientific validity. This policy will no doubt be refined over time.
Multiple points of view (MPOV): to an extent this is dealt with at Wikipedia:
- NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
Our policy will probably need to adapt this a little, being flexible but tending to give weight according to scientific verifiability, and perhaps according to importance, or the danger level if not taken seriously.
New science often has to deal with multiple points of view, when all the facts are not yet in - we try to represent that as best we can, and also actively encourage research where there are gaps in our knowledge.
There are valid points of view reflecting experience and opinion. For example it would be acceptable to write an article called "How I switched to CFL lighting and improved my love life" - this may be a valid way of sharing how to deal with a conflict between sustainable action (using CFL lighting) and the results of that action (harsh light).