Jimmy Wales wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Wikipedia could turn into a place where the
content is largely a
tasteless, watery gruel because everyone is on pins and needles to
avoid provoking negative responses.
Well, that would make me very happy. This is an encyclopedia, after
all.
BrilliantProse, good writing, need not be controversial or
antagonizing at all. A well written article can be lively,
interesting, well-organized, etc., while at the same time in a very
encyclopedic fashion present the facts in a sufficiently neutral
manner that all sides to a dispute, if they are working in good faith,
can agree that it's a good presentation.
--Jimbo
I feel like my point is being misunderstood, or else taken out of
context. (However, no offense is taken, and no apology necessary.)
A truly NPOV article on a controversial subject would present things in
a neutral fashion, but it would not be "tasteless, watery gruel". And
that specifically because people would contribute without fear of
negative feedback. I consider that important because the perfect NPOV
article does not suddenly appear, and does not spring fully formed from
the head of its author. It results from a community process, and I
believe that process would never take place if contributors had to worry
about their feedback ratings. The danger is that we make the community
so wary that people are too timid to even discuss certain subjects,
leaving only the shallowest, definitely non-encyclopedic treatment of
controversial topics.
--Michael Snow