On 4/2/06, Thommandel@aol.com Thommandel@aol.com wrote:
What if the editor only thinks he is a good wikipedian, but inreality by what he does, is actually promoting a POV? How is that determined? and where is the line drawn between good editing and POV pushing?
If someone is making a good faith attempt at NPOV, but are being unsuccessful, then you need to let them know what the problem is with their editing. Do so in a polite, collegial manner, and clearly reference sources and policy.
If a reader, a researcher say, accesses the pages of standard and non- standard theories, what kind of "neutrality" is he looking for? If there is a controversy between standard and non-standard, was it good editing to remove that controversy from the Wikientry? Is it "neutral" for an admin editor advocate of the standard theory to write "non-standard theories are widely discredited" on the non-standard theory page?
It's more than "neutral" to do so, it's necessary. If non-standard theories have been discredited, then the article needs to say so.
You are assuming "good Wikipedian" but what about not-good Wikipedian admin/editors? How do you identify them? For example, what sort of evidence would you want if I were to present a case against an aledged wikiadmin pov pusher?
An article RFC is probably the best way to go in a case like this - get input from other editors