The other point was that WP is (or wants to be) an encyclopaedia, and that some POVs have to be excluded. The way we do that is by assessing how much (academic) support they have, in terms of the context and subject matter. There's no need for content committees, as long as consensus decisions on WP:NPOV can be acheieved (mediation) and enforced (arbitration).
-- Stephen Bain
If the decision on excluded POVs is made on the basis of how much support they have, we will quickly turn toward a regime of censorhip of unpopular views.
* We won't even be able to MENTION that a minority of scientists contacted by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) disagree with the "consensus" that anthropogenic emissions are causing excessive atmospheric warming.
* If a religion is branded a "cult" (and enough people share this view), then the "excluded POVs policy" would forbid ANY mention of reasons why some people think the religion is bona fide.
In short, Wikipedia would become the "liberal encyclopedia", replacing the NPOV *policy* with the liberal *POV*. I don't think Jimbo would like that.
Jimbo, please comment.
Ed Poor