Elian wisely wrote:
'Of course, that's an ideal. You can never completely leave your
personal
views aside. But the important [thing] is: you can try. People who
openly work
for pushing POV in an article, shouldn't be allowed to edit that article
at all. NPOV policy is not about "I insert my propaganda into an article
and let others do the tedious task of neutralizing it", it's "do your
best to write from a neutral point of view. And if you are unable to do
so, leave the article alone". And this policy should be enforced by the
community.'
This is the best description I've ever read about the problem of writing
a Wikipedia article on a contentious subject. I want to highlight the
points Elian made:
* You can never completely leave your personal views aside.
We all know this is true. Some of us even abstain from editing "certain
articles", because we KNOW that we can't write neutrally about them. The
desire to be RIGHT takes precedence over the desire to conform to
policy. I generally leave the environmental controversies alone, because
I don't have the necessary detachment: I KNOW that I'm right about
global warming. And I really WISH that I could set aside my personal
feelings, but I just have not been able to. It's puzzling, but I'd be
crazy (or at best, a highly anti-social pest!) to deny the fact that I
just can't write neutrally about global warming. Sigh.
* You can try.
I really love the Unification Church, and it's HARD for me to write
neutrally on it. Somehow, though, I've been able to step back and
appreciate the POV of critics. Maybe because my best friend is the VP
for Public Relations, or maybe because after 27 years in the church I
know it so thoroughly that I don't feel threatened by other POVs. "Oh,
they think that? Ha, ha, how silly! Here, let me explain it to them..."
Anyway, I've been able to pace myself and avoid edit wars by delaying
any reverts for days and weeks at a time.
* People who openly work for pushing POV in an article, shouldn't be
allowed to edit that article at all.
There are people who don't try. And I agree with Elian: just ban them
from that article. The software change is not too hard, and it's
something Jimbo has put his seal of approval on too. I'd like to see a
formal vote on this, if there's enough consensus to put it to a vote.
And if the arbcom bans me from editing [[urban heat island effect]], I
might be a bit disappointed but I will STILL support the idea of
per-article bans. (Of course, I'd like to think that a warning or two
would get my conscience to kick in. ;-)
* NPOV policy is not about "I insert my propaganda into an article and
let others do the tedious task of neutralizing it"
This is the key point!! Articles are not for promoting propaganda. They
are for NEUTRAL DESCRIPTIONS OF POVs. Not, 'the UN is right about this',
or 'Israel is wrong about that' -- but:
=> The UN's point of view is this, and Israel's POV is that.
It looks like a subtle difference, but it's a crucial one: endorsing a
POV vs. describing a POV.
I want to thank Elian for reminding us how hard it is to deal with
personal views. Elian is one of Wikipedia's finest writers. We disagree
diametrically on Middle East topics, but have never had a reversion war,
because Elian SETS A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR ME when it comes to NPOV writing.
I hope we can come to a community consensus on enforcing the Wikipedia's
NPOV policy.
Ed Poor