On 4/2/06, Thommandel(a)aol.com <Thommandel(a)aol.com> wrote:
What if the editor only thinks he is a good wikipedian, but in
reality
by what he does, is actually promoting a POV? How is that
determined?
and where is the line drawn between good editing and POV pushing?
If someone is making a good faith attempt at NPOV, but are being
unsuccessful, then you need to let them know what the problem is with their
editing. Do so in a polite, collegial manner, and clearly reference sources
and policy.
If a reader, a researcher say, accesses the pages of
standard and non-
standard theories, what kind of "neutrality" is he looking for?
If
there is a
controversy between standard and non-standard, was it good
editing
to
remove that controversy from the Wikientry? Is it "neutral"
for
an admin
editor advocate of the standard theory to write "non-standard
theories are
widely discredited" on the non-standard theory page?
It's more than "neutral" to do so, it's necessary. If non-standard
theories
have been discredited, then the article needs to say so.
You are assuming "good Wikipedian" but what about not-good
Wikipedian admin/editors? How do you identify them?
For example, what sort of evidence would you want if I were
to present a case against an aledged wikiadmin pov pusher?
An article RFC is probably the best way to go in a case like this - get
input from other editors