<<I-E Fork/sympathetic POV>>
I have seen some of their articles and don't believe that the slight
change in perspective makes the core problems go away. If they had the
size and diversity of user community we have here, they would have the
<<Reasons people leave the project>>
No, people leave the project because of people like
RK, who claim they're doing something equivalent to
I agree that many of RK's edits were unhelpful, and the RK and people
like him drive good editors away from the project.
But it was RK's vitriolic putdowns, allegations, and attempts to confuse
the discussion by deleting portions of talk pages that made him so hard
to accept. To be sure, many of his edits were POV, but some of the crap
he reverted out of hand, deserved to be reverted out of hand. Had he
done so in a caring, loving way, with an edit comment like "moving
unsourced material to talk page," and then made a genuine attempt to
work with the other contributor to get the article fixed, he would have
accomplished great things here.
<<what's wrong with putting the burden of proof on the editor>>
[...] Don't you have some kind of
reason to delete content? If you don't think (and
prove, if someone asks) that the content is
inaccurate, why should you delete it?
Well, we have to decide on the bias.
Presently, if someone adds something to an article, they generally
aren't expected to provide sources, though it is encouraged.
If another editor wants to delete something, they *are* expected to
provide sources, at least if challenged. Now, it is difficult and time
consuming to try to refute facts one at a time. So the editor who's
trying to delete something has to do, say, 100 times the work of the
person who added it.
That imbalance does not make for good articles, It also makes people
frustrated who would otherwise try to work through articles, removing
the junk, and making them more NPOV. That is especially true outside
the sciences. It's fairly easy to check the atomic weight of silver,
but much harder to refute an assertion that Count Leonard III was a
pivotal figure in British tactics used in the 100 years war. He's not,
I just made that up, now what do you suppose it would take to refute that?
And you need
that community support, because you are
up against people
with strong feelings, who want to paint subjects a
certain way. You
mention environmentalism, but that's just one of the
many areas where
this is a problem. The Israel/Palestine issues,
articles on different
religions, articles on cults, politics, and world
trade all have the
You're just going against NPOV. You just think that
everything should be "right". Well, who's to say who's
right? You? Someone from the other side? The concept
of NPOV is to show all sides and let the reader
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I support NPOV, and don't think
that it's the encyclopedia's job to take sides. But having an NPOV
policy does not prevent conflict, as we've seen. NPOV is not a
pallative for disagreements about articles.
With an NPOV policy, there are still problems in three areas:
1. There are disagreements about the facts.
There are, for example, people who believe that Roundup (the herbicide)
is carcinogenic. It isn't, but based on a single irresponsibly written
study (Ericson & Hardell), this belief persists. Some people might
consider statements like, "Roundup, a known carcinogen, has seen
increasingly widespread use on fruit and vegetable crops each year since
1995." Someone might try to compromise by replacing "known carcinogen"
with "suspected carcinogen," but even that view is fringe enough that it
doesn't belong in an article about vegetable crops.
2. There are disagreements about what is important and what is not, and
hence, the relative amounts of emphasis something should be given.
This is a problem particularly outside the sciences.
3. Closely related to #2, there is difficulty coming up with summary
statements for difficult, involved problems.
Often such statements can be crafted, with careful participation of
several writers over time. When someone new to the article comes in,
they may (inadvertently or deliberately) destroy a fragile consensus.
What's your definition of neutrality? Is
other points of view that are "wrong" not neutral?
Having all points of view represented in the encyclopedia is great.
Having points of view present that are not supported by facts ("wrong"),
are great to have in context.
I think it's great to have articles on UFOs, the "Reciprocal System of
Theory," and how G.W. Bush stole the presidency from the
rightfully-elected Al Gore.
But none of these should pervade the article space. We wouldn't want a
UFO enthusiast to get a bot and edit all the city articles and add a
list of UFO sightings for each city. And we wouldn't want every article
that has a reference to Al Gore to refer to him as "Al Gore, rightfully
elected president of the United States."
when you're in an edit war with someone for including
their POVs is going too far.
I don't think that banning users solves anything, and did not suggest it
in my post.