Sheldon Rampton wrote:
I don't see any reason to assume that an encyclopedia *has* to have a neutral point of view to succeed. NPOV is only one among multiple possible points of view. Someday maybe there'll be a Commiepedia frequented by leftists, a Nazipedia, a Christipedia, an Intifadipedia, an Agnostipedia...
I think that's probably right. Such sites would probably have to be setup so that only logged-in users can edit, and logins are only granted to people who apply. And *then*, a form of "NPOV" (Nazi point of view?) could be used to resolve intra-group disputes.
Our success, though, is in part because we're able to get a large number of people together, i.e. it's really easy to start working, and because even people of fairly widely divergent political, religious, etc. viewpoints can "buy into" NPOV.
I've brainstormed that it could be possible to set up a site devoted to a particular "hot topic", say gun rights, and have articles written wiki-style both "pro" and "con". But what a nightmare to administer. It seems easier to me (and more useful, likely) to have an in-depth website on a topic like that where all parties are morally committed to NPOV.
One thing that's great about wikipedia is that there are tons and tons of topics that just aren't really controversial at all. I mean, what kind of flame war can really develop about the names of rivers? (Er, uh... *wink*)
--Jimbo