[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Nick Boalch
Peter Mackay wrote:
Accordingly on other articles, different points of view need
to be included based on their prominence and level of support
in the real world, not just on which happens to be most
popular among the Wikipedia editing community.
That's the problem. In theory, theory and practice are
practice, they aren't.
WP articles are not written by the general community, they
by editors, usually a handful of core
works out to
what these editors agree it is, simply because
nobody else has any
Indeed. The point is that those editors
> Writing consistently with NPOV is not
opinion on an
> Biasing an article towards your own opinions *is*
inflicting your opinion on
article, is obviously not consistent with NPOV.
Beg pardon, but it is. If (say) a Republican and a Democrat
article, each one only writing material that
their partisan views, but the end result is
balanced and consistent
with community support, then that is NPOV.
That is entirely dependent on where you draw the line on what
the 'end result' is. I am perfectly happy with the idea of
Wikipedia articles gradually improving over long amounts of
time towards some future goal, but NPOV is non-negotiable
and, regardless of how eventualist your philosophy is, an
article must always be NPOV. Now. Not at some time in the
future. Now. Therefore I'm not happy with the editing process
you suggest above, which implies one editor biasing the
article towards one particular viewpoint then another editor
coming along later and biasing it in a different direction.
Every version should always be NPOV.
As noted, there is a difference between what WP *should* be and what it
actually is. You may talk theory all you like, and I will agree with your
ideals 100%, but that doesn't change what actually happens out in
With all due respect to you, I think you're
misinterpreting what Jimbo (and I) actually mean. I don't
think either of us are suggesting that editors should be
'opinionless automatons', just that they shouldn't let their
opinions influence the way they write articles.
That's plain bizarre. There's absolutely nothing wrong with editors
inserting their own opinions into articles. It happens
every day. So
long as it is done with NPOV in mind it works
Now I think you're deliberately misinterpreting what I mean
in order to throw up an irrelevant straw man (note that this
is a discussion tactic that I have absolutely no 'due respect' for).
I'm sorry you think that. You are wrong.
Obviously writing an NPOV-compliant article isn't
Unduly biasing an article towards your own opinions is not
compliant with NPOV.
I don't think you understand NPOV. NPOV allows for multiple points of view,
not one. We present the facts and let the reader decide.