From: Poor, Edmund W Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 4:59 PM To: lazolla@hotmail.com; English Wikipedia Subject: [WikiEN-l] Resolving content disputes (was: Mother Teresa article)
Grandfather Louis predicted:
-> Provide a fair, effective means of resolving the -> content disputes, and >poof<, the cases of disruption -> requiring bans become rare.
Here I have been remiss. Erik asked me weeks and WEEKS ago to work
with
him on an NPOV tutorial, and I have barely lifted a finger there.
I seem to be better at actually 'neutralizing' an article or 'talking' to a specific user about NPOV in context. But I'm having trouble organizing my thoughts for a [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial]]. Someone else kind of took it over, but it looks like a rehash of an 'NPOV
definition'
article.
I'll say it again, and I'll probably say it until I'm blue in the face: the problem you're having with describing NPOV is that the current LMS-influenced description of what a neutral point of view means is flawed by self-contradiction, muddled meaning, and bad directives.
I've explicated what I consider a healthy and useful conception of how to construct better articles and build a better Wikipedia in the past. I'll just repeat this mantra again:
NPOV is an ideal.
If you understand what that means and what the implications are, you're on the right track.