Academic writing makes a judgement about what the most likely state of matters is, and gives a position. When I read an academic paper , in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions. (I am likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if they seem interesting, then go back and read the evidence.) I don't see how community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for which a particular person does not take responsibility: the reason is that different people will necessarily reach different conclusions.
A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a POV, but nonetheless arrange the material so as to express one. I think all good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or textbook writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying one, beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the different people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel each other out.
But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a particular direction. We try to write articles so the readers will have an understanding. An understanding implies a POV. This provides a fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning guide, and give a basis for further understanding--"understanding" implies a theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts of variable relevance. So our present rules are right for the way we work: we can not aim for more than accuracy and balance. Let those who wish to truly explain things use Wikipedia as a method of orientation, but then they will need to find a medium that will express their personal view.
In teaching, I find even beginning students know this, and recognize the limitations. I think the general public does also, and it is our very imperfections that make it evident. If we looked more polished, it would be misleading. What we need to work for now is twofold: bringing up the bottom level so that what we present is accurate and representative, sourced appropriately and helpfully; and increasing our breath of coverage to the neglected areas--the traditional humanities and similar areas in one direction, and everything outside the current English speaking world, in the other .
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
That's a valid and subtle point. It's compounded by the fact that the more heavyweight sources tend to be more restrained in their tone, and the more lightweight sources, more shrill and emotive.
NPOV as presently defined does not help us there: we are duty-bound to reflect the shrill voices in their shrillness, and the authoritative sources in their restraint.
I don't see this changing unless we can see our way clear to assigning more weight to authoritative sources, instead of the simple dichotomy of "not reliable"/"reliable", where everything on the "reliable" side is given equal weight, regardless of whether it is a gossip site or an authoritative scholarly biography.
Andreas
No one is "obligated" to edit in a foolish way. Editorial judgment means use your OWN best judgment, and, if there are issues, discuss what weight to give various sources.
Fred