On May 3, 2006, at 10:51 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
The philosophy that NPOV is achieved by warring
parties is one that I
have always rejected, and in practice, I think we can easily see
absolutely does not work.
Sometimes it *does* work, if there is a commitment to Wikipedia
In my experience in editing [[Prem Rawat]] ((Disclaimer: I am a
student of his), and not-withstanding the sometimes contentious
nature of the exchanges and the obvious lack of talk-page disciple,
the article has amassed more than 130 citations over the two years it
has been edited, most of which from scholarly articles, books and
other reputable sources, making this article one of the best
referenced articles in WP. If it was not for the efforts of
interested parties, this would not have been achieved.
If editors (interested parties or not) abide by policy and make
efforts to improve articles to make them more encyclopedic and NPOV,
I see no problem.
I would argue that most articles are edited by interested parties,
after all most of us got attracted to WP to address articles and
subjects that we knew something about. In the beginning, and until
one learns the ropes, one may do more harm than good, but in the long
run and if the commitment is there, editors learn the power of NPOV
and of the WP community to assert it and protect it against
Finally, I personally don't see a way to enforce a ban on interested
parties, rather prefer that we trust the power of the community of
editors that care about this project to contain these situations and
to welcome and coach newbies on the best ways to contribute.