>>This isn't some obscure corner of the 'pedia, folks, like [[Iridology]]
>>or [[Instructional capital]].
>>
>>This is about the article on one of the largest minor political parties
>>in U.S. politics, on the 300th largest web site in the world.
Ec wrote-
>Your POV is showing. The second part is true in itself, but the
>comparison with two other ideas merits mentioning. Controversial as it
>may be , iridology does have a certain following. Many of these might
>place the Libertarian Party in an obscure corner. It is a matter of
>pure speculation for the followers of the one to say that the followers
>of the other are in an obscure corner.
>Instructional capital is probably less well known, but that is probably
>only because econo-social theories in general attract less attention.
My ignorance is showing, perhaps, but not my POV; I have never
been much of a supporter of the Libertarian party or of third-party
movements in general. I chose the other articles as examples that
have been the targets of POV warriors. Wikipedia lacks hit counters
so we have no objective way of knowing which of these articles is
the most frequently visited, though I still suspect that the Libertarian
page has had more views, particularly with the election and its
aftermath stimulating interest in U.S. politics.
In any case, my point remains: that with Wikipedia's continuing surge
in popularity, we have an obligation of service to our readers. And
POV warriors are making trouble on articles that, IMO, are now widely
read.
Two years ago it didn't make much difference if *any* article was
protected
for a week on [[m:The wrong version]]. Now it does, at least in some
cases.
UninvitedCompany