I disagree. An
article that basically is arguing both sides of an
issues extensively is NOT how I see the ideal, NPOV article.
Well, I do not think articles should "basically argue both sides of
an
issue". It should not be arguing for or against
anything.
But omitting details -- why? There's plenty of room on the hard
drive.
For me it's not about drive space, it's about writing encyclopedia
articles instead of debate summaries. The end result just has the
completely wrong tone. This is exactly what I was talking about recently
on the Pump:
So many articles consist of person one saying: Some people believe <my
POV>. Then person two adds: Other people, however, believe that <my
POV>. What a mess. An article filled with this kind of
POV-in-NPOV-clothing reads like a debate, not an encyclopedia article.
Axlrosen 13:53, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
* How else do you present alternative points-of-view? Some people
believe that Mother Teresa is a saint, others that she is a witch.
Perhaps you would prefer only one author per article? Actually, Adam
Carr -- a single author -- wrote an alternative version of the MT
article with exactly that structure. And it reads like a ''real''
encyclopedia article. -- Viajero 14:10, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
** I guess my point is that a ''real'' encyclopedia article would spend
90% of its time on the facts of her life, her work, etc., and 10% of its
time on the controversy surrounding her. On Wikipedia this often gets
reversed, because everyone has to make sure that their own POV is
represented (prefixed of course by "some people say..."). If you try to
trim down the excessive debate in an article, then people accuse you of
surpressing opinions that make you uncomfortable or whatever. (I'm not
talking about the MT article specifically because I haven't been
following that debate, but about WP in general. For example this is what
happened on PETA recently.) Axlrosen 18:07, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Alex