Daniel Mayer wrote:
But having NPOV articles that described in detail the
views of particular
groups of people are fine; they just need to be correctly titled and qualified.
This is just a more focused form of NPOV where less relevant material gets an
appropriate amount of coverage. It is a fallacy to assume that NPOV means we
can only have very general articles (not that I'm saying you ascribe to that
fallacy).
If people want to have a biased instead of an NPOV encyclopedia, then they can
start one any time they wish, but it will not be part of Wikimedia.
Wikinfo has the Sympathetic Point Of View policy with parallel articles.
I would not claim that Wikipedia getting all the hits and publicity is
necessarily evidence their approach is worse - first-mover advantage and
network effect counts for a *lot* - but I do feel that, whereas SPOV will
make strident editors feel better, it doesn't really create better articles
for the *reader*.
(Much as I enjoy wasting time (and it is wasting time) on IRC, and attending
the occasional meet, I'm on Wikipedia for the buzz of creating an end
result, not for the social club.)
- d.