On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
I think rejecting any policy on the grounds that it may produce POV edits is flawed. Quite simply, the value of POV edits is not particularly high to anyone, unless they're being paid to maintain them. Any article will, over time, represent the POV of all its contributors, not just one. So, just as one NPOV crimefighter working on a Pokemon fan article (with apologies) will eventually see his work completely eroded, a nefarious POV pusher working on an otherwise neutral article will see his evil deeds go to waste. Wikipedia works because overall most articles have mostly more or less neutral contributors mostly contributing. (I couldn't get any more hedges into that sentence...)
Even if people *do* buy NPOV edits, they'll have wasted their money when those edits are deleted.