Elian wrote:
NPOV policy should be: "authors should write from
a neutral point of view."
Of course, that's an ideal. You can never
completely leave your personal
views aside. But the important is: you can try. People who openly work
for pushing POV in an article, shouldn't be allowed to edit that article
at all. NPOV policy is not about "I insert my propaganda into an article
and let others do the tedious taks of neutralizing it", it's "do your
best to write from a neutral point of view. And if you are unable to do
so, leave the article alone". And this policy should be enforced by the
community.
I support Elian's idea. And I concur with the conclusions Rebecca made in
an earlier posting. I decided myself to leave the English Wikipedia
one year ago
after getting tired of fighting POV vandals for months. Their names
changed but their ways remained the same. I had great hope when the
arbitration committee was founded but soon I felt that this committee
is not an adequate measure for the problem.
If you reached general
agreement about a version then there should be a fast process of
barring a new generation of POV pushers from tearing all the success
down. It is not reasonable that we should go through the painfully
long processes of mediation and arbitration again and again while
these new POV pushers have time enough to undo all the progress in an
article.
I regard Adam Carr as one of the best editors Wikipedia ever had in
the history sector. With the current system you can only hope that new
NPOV defenders come and go to fight the POV pushers. The main
arguments against a stable version policy appear to be dogmas about
what a wiki should be. At last you need to come to a sort of content
arbitration or locking selected versions from major edits. If not, I
fear that one day the potential NPOV defenders will be used up.
Mirko
--
Mirko Thiessen, aka Baldhur
mailto:baldhur@mirko-thiessen.de