She sounds like an activist who will interpret anything neutral as taking a position against, and who's lost so much perspective that a single person's statement is taken as the official word.
Allow me to disagree. I joined this mailing list in order to learn about what to post and how to word articles and also to bring to the attention of someone who can do something about the problems I've been facing.
I too was under the impression that the aim of Wikipedia was to present things in an encyclopediac fashion. Admittedly, it is difficult to achieve this on issues such as partial-birth abortion. However, when Wikipedia allows allegations ragrding verifiable events (especially the allegations of political oppnents) to be posted as a legitimate point of view, the credibility of Wikipedia takes a beating.
On issues which are not points of view, why not let the verifiable facts speak for themselves? Follow the old dictum of "show, don't tell."
In particular, I've been having problems regarding contributions I've made on India. I've tried to stick to verifiable facts and present things in an encyclopedic manner, but there seem to be 3 members who keep watch on what I'm posting and revert it to their version which carries nothing but what can be classified as propaganda of the Communist Party of India(Marxist). These people add allegations by this party as a part of an article.
Initially, I was told that representing all points of views was considered neutral on Wikipedia and I believed it, even though I was startled that it could be the case. I would have liked to see a version which presented issues without jingoism in an encyclopedic manner. In any case, I accepted the claim that if an issue has N views, all N views are represented on Wikipedia. However, when I posted a point of view they didn't like, it was removed by them!
They've been posting opinions as facts and there is another strategy they follow. If I have anything positive to say about India, they come up with "some people think this, others claim that" kind of article to obfuscate the issue. If there is something negative, they gleefully make assertions. I am sorry to say that if this is what neutrality is about, Wikipedia will not have any credibility.
I am open to minute scrutiny of my contributions and removal of points which are unacceptable (in fact, when someone pointed out some flaws in my version, I accepted them and removed them since I wanted to make it better.) For the record, my id is LibertarianAnarchist and you may check out my posts and subject them to scrutiny by someone who is really neutral and knowledgeable.
I agree that controversial positions are tough to decide on, but revising history by writing fiction and their own allegations and then armtwisting me by claiming that it is controversial since they have a particular point of view?
I hope Wikipedia will not become a Hindu/India hating site.
Thanks, A sincere contributor
_______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com