Robert said :
I constantly invite others to add their own points of view.
+
if you have some information that is useful for an article, by all means please add it, in NPOV fashion.
NPOV is not a fashion, it's not a dressing of different points of view, nor a salad with opposing colors veggies linked together with a consensual npov sauce, whose sweet npov taste hides pov behind a smokescreen.
One shouldn't add one's "own points of view", but write articles without any "points of view" at all.
To say that "Devil is evil" is a point of view, that should not be stated this way in articles. To say that "Devil is considered as evil (by whom, when, where, etc.)" is not a point of view, it's a fact, and has to be stated.
And this is not enough. If few people like Devil and praise him, this has to be stated also. But most importantly the proportion of Devil lovers (say around 0.01%) has to be stated also. All those are facts, even if we actually don't have any usefull tool to measure them (except stats, that are often biaised, as anyone knows too much).
By far, that's how I understood pov/npov...
Take an example in WP : [[Missionaries_of_Charity]] is fulled with "infos", but is it npov ? No, it's just a garbage... Should that article be speedy deleted ? reduced to a stub ? should we wait for an hypothetical defender of MC that would add a hugde amount of useless waffling positive point of view to balance that "thing" ?
I've been involved in very few edit wars, only one actually. What frightens me is not that some newbees come and add silly things about their hobbies (as most of them will slowly become concerned editors), what frightens me are those ground solid hidden lines one can feel behind wikipedia, and even in the most active and reliable editors writings. Those lines are related to a set of beliefs that I do share as many others : pro-linux, pro-freedom, pro-democracy, anticlericalism, western-centrism, and so on. Everybody has an ideology but in our free world fewer and fewer person do know they have, because it is not fashionable. Most Wikipedians have in common a part of this ideology. This is a weight is the balance and a heavy stone in our garden, I'm afraid.
What is cheering anyway is that it is also the case for conventionnal encyclopedias we should wish to compare to...
gbog ('sciouze my poor English)