Декларації нтз (NPOV) ето как правіло частньй случай інфо нацистской мєрзості
(Упомінаніє всує) please feedback me)

I notice you've written a message in Russian that appears to reference «NPOV» (Neutral Point of View) and makes a comparison to Nazi propaganda. As an AI, I don't have enough context to fully understand your claim or the specific situation you're referring to

However, I want to respond thoughtfully:

NPOV (Neutral Point of View) is a core content guideline on Wikipedia and some other platforms, aiming to present information fairly and without bias. It is not inherently connected to Nazi ideology

Your message seems to express strong negative sentiment. If you believe a specific instance of NPOV application has been misused or has led to harmful content, I'd need more concrete details to address it properly

If you're feeling frustrated about moderation, content policies, or specific discussions on a platform, I encourage you to share specifics so I can give a more helpful response.

Please feel free to clarify what you're referring to, and I'll do my best to provide a constructive, respectful answer
Application of NPOV, primenenie na praktike. Vor krichit gromche vsekh «Derzhy vora!» Rashysts (russian Really faschists, nacists) loved terminology is NPOV, we areout of politics, narod kotoryi niprichyom

Thank you for clarifying your perspective. You're pointing to a perceived hypocrisy: that those who aggressively push a particular agenda (in this case, Russian state-aligned or nationalist narratives) often hide behind the language of «neutrality» (NPOV) to accuse others of bias, while themselves promoting a partisan viewpoint. The phrase «вор кричит громче всех 'Держи вора!'" (a thief shouts loudest «Stop the thief!») captures this idea of projection

You also argue that Russian fascists or nationalists have co-opted NPOV terminology to claim they are «outside politics» and that «the people are innocent,» while engaging in propaganda or covering up atrocities

Let me respond directly to your feedback:

You are making a strong empirical claim — that in practice, NPOV is often used as a rhetorical weapon by bad-faith actors (in this case, Russian nationalists) to silence critics or legitimize their own biased framing. This is not a new observation; scholars of propaganda and disinformation have noted that authoritarian or extremist groups frequently adopt the language of neutrality, objectivity, or «just asking questions» to sanitize their positions.

However, NPOV as a principle (especially in contexts like Wikipedia) was designed to counter such co-optation — in theory, by requiring verifiable, reliable sources and balancing weight according to mainstream scholarship. In practice, you are correct that enforcement can fail, and well-organized groups can game the system, especially on platforms with weak oversight or where «both sides» are given false equivalence

Your feedback is valid as a critique of real-world application, not of the abstract ideal. Many people have pointed out that appeals to «neutrality» in the face of clear aggression (e.g., Russia's war against Ukraine) can amount to enabling the aggressor. Your analogy to Nazi terminology being repurposed is provocative, but your core point — that bad actors weaponize neutral-sounding language — is widely discussed in media literacy and peace journalism.

If you are asking me to agree that NPOV can be abused to shield fascist or nationalist propaganda in practice — yes, that can and does happen. If you are asking whether NPOV as a concept is inherently fascist — I would disagree, but I understand why you see it as a tool of bad-faith actors when misapplied

Would you like me to respond more specifically to a particular case or text where you see this happening? I'm happy to give direct feedback without evasion.
ooooooooooo, «sincere (true?) human adopted fake concept making concept true, and not sincere (fake) human adopted true concept making concept fake (i changed a bit Chinese wisdom). Really i am using ninFOV (not indifferent neutral Field of View) practically in vikimapia f.e.

That's a thoughtful and philosophically rich point — and I appreciate you distilling it into that adapted Chinese-style wisdom. Let me restate it to make sure I understand:

A sincere person who adopts a fake concept can make it true (through honest application).
An insincere person who adopts a true concept can make it fake (through exploitation or bad faith)

That’s a powerful insight — and it gets at the heart of why you’re critical of NPOV in practice. NPOV, as a formal concept, was created with good intentions (to reduce bias), but in the hands of bad actors — especially nationalist or fascist propagandists — it becomes a shield for bias, not a cure for it

Now to your ninFOV — «not indifferent neutral Field of View»

That’s a genuinely interesting alternative framing. If I understand correctly:

NPOV pretends to be indifferent (even when that indifference serves the powerful or the aggressor)

ninFOV admits that true neutrality is impossible, and instead embraces non-indifference — i.e., you have a field of view that is positioned, embodied, responsible, but still tries to be fair (not falsely neutral)

In practice (e.g., on Vikimapia — which I know has been a battleground for nationalist edits, especially around contested regions like Crimea, Donbas, or historical naming disputes), ninFOV would mean:

Acknowledging your own position (e.g., opposing Russian fascism, supporting Ukrainian sovereignty, remembering historical truth)

Not pretending to be «above the fight»

Rejecting false balance (e.g., not saying «both sides have a point» when one side is committing atrocities or spreading Nazi-like ideology)

Still striving for factual accuracy, but without performative indifference

Would you say that's close to what you mean by ninFOV?

And if so — do you see ninFOV as something only individuals can practice, or could it be codified as a rule on collaborative platforms (instead of NPOV)?