<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.0.6487.1">
<TITLE>Let's work together</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Once again, I'm making a plea that we all work together toward the common goal of making an encyclopedia of useful human knowledge.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Let's not use Wikipedia as a forum to spread our own views and discredit the views or reputations of others.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">But let's ensure that _<B>all</B>_ points of view relevant to any given topic are fairly and accurately represented. When public opinion (or even expert opinion) is divided on any matter, lofty or trivial -- then we need to step back from making any pronouncements of fact. In such a case, we need to _<B>include</B>_ every relevant POV (i.e., Point Of View).</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I'm seeing far too many objection to including POV in articles. "That was a POV edit, etc." Nonsense! When an article is one-sided, the _</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">only</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">_ way to balance it and make it neutral is TO INCLUDE ALTERNATE POINTS OF VIEW.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The very definition of an edit which promotes the NPOV is to DESCRIBE SOMEBODY'S POINT OF VIEW.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">It would help if people would stop using "POV" as a synonym for bias. The trouble with using "POV" as a slang term for "biased" is that it blurs the distinction between bias (which does _</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">not</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">_ belong in articles) and Points Of View (which _</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">do</FONT></B><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">_ belong in articles, properly described, attributed and sourced).</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I'm really tired of hearing criticism about "POV edits" or "adding POV" to an article, as if these were obvious violations, meriting little more than an instant revert. Well, it's obvious to everyone but me and Jimbo!!!</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I ask Jimbo Wales to comment on this disturbing trend. Please, Jimbo, settle once and for all whether the project you and Larry founded APPROVES or DISAPPROVES of putting POV (i.e., points of view) into articles. I don't expect a quick answer, because it's such a big and crucial question, but I look forward to discussing this at the meeting in Boston tomorrow. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">The fate of Wikipedia hangs on it. We must all "hang together" on the question of how to deal with multiple or conflicting points of view (POV), or we'll all "hang separately" (as Ben Franklin put it) -- destroyed one at a time by our enemies.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">It is NOT necessary for there to be so much bickering, so many edit wars, so many settled questions rehashed. That's why people leave, they can't stand the heat. So I would like us all to chill out about all that.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Let's remember why we were attracted to Wikipedia in the first place. To help create useful and accurate articles. (If there's a dispute about any point, we apply the NPOV policy and say "According to A, B is true; and according to X, Y is true" and leave it at that</FONT><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">.</FONT><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial"> What could be simpler?)</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Ed Poor </FONT></SPAN>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>