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