Sam Korn wrote:
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/4/5 Oskar Sigvardsson
<oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com>
I think it's very clear that wikipedia has
developed a very successful
model, not least because many other wikis seem to almost automatically
adopt our style and policies. In short: Wikipedia Works.
NPOV is our key innovation. Much more radical than letting anyone edit
the website.
I agree. The only way a wiki that says "anyone can edit" can work
is
with NPOV. You can either enforce a POV by banning people who don't
share your point of view, or you can explicitly endorse *no-one's*
point of view.
An enforced POV cannot really be neutral.
(Similarly, NPOV would be extremely difficult to
manage with a small
base of users as discussion (and, to some extent, conflict) is
essential.)
Not really, in a paradoxical way. Many rarely visited articles on
non-controversial subjects already achieve that neutrality. An
unchallenged article written by a single person is neutral at the moment
it is written, and remains so until challenged. If the content is
outrageous that neutrality will seldom last more than a few minutes.
Ec