Okay, let me be clearer. And I'll try to stop swearing, damn it!
MY OWN goal is to help build an unbiased encyclopedia. To a certain extent, that goal
coincides with Jimbo's goal. Moreover, that goal is sought be many other signed-in
contributors whose work I've come to respect.
The Neutral Point Of View policy is, as I see it, a MEANS toward an end. By requiring
disputants to cite sources and attribute points of view to spokesman, we avoid the bias
that inevitably mars other encyclopedias.
MS Encarta and E. Britannica have long been unfair to my church, as well as being way to
soft on Communism.
The idea that Jimbo and Larry have championed is that on controversial matters, we agree
to disagree: A said X about it, while B said Y about it. This lets the reader make up
their own mind, based upon whatever criteria they choose.
Neutrality in itself is not a goal I believe in. It's only a shared means to an end.
Jimbo is pro-free-markets and anti-Marxist. I doubt that he is personally neutral on these
subjects, but I daresay he AGREES that the articles should neither favor nor oppose free
markets or Marxism.
Likewise (as a small mind may imitate a greater mind) I favor the Unification Church and
oppose homosexuality. Yet I have agreed to write neutrally on both these subjects, and I
think I've done well enough on maintain "editorial neutrality" to justify
the confidence the community has placed in me. (What confidence? Oh, shut up!)
Let us re-examine our aims; then we can decide on means to achieve the ends.
Ed Poor
"My opinion, not my company's"
Show replies by date