I trust that Sarah is as sincere as I in exploring the meaning of these concepts and their
implications for the quality and future of Wikipedia. And I appreciate her effort to
elucidate. I take exception to her coining the phrase "popular opinion" and
building her talk around it. I don't really want to be in the position of discussing
the "validity" of "popular opinion". But the general thrust of her
summary is probably at least approximately correct. Namely, that NPOV requires we
represent all views fairly. And I suppose "popular opinion" is usually a
significant view.
The background from which I come is this: As a Wikipedia *reader*, I expect to find
articles that give me a complete picture ("all sides") of a subject I seek to
learn about. I have used Wikipedia to learn about Islam, Buddhism, and many other
controversial subjects. In fact, the more controversial a subject is, the more I insist
within that I must see what Wikipedia has to say. That is because I know that "given
enough pens, all biases are level." I trust Wikipedia to feed me more
"knowledge" free of spin than any other source. And I say that if we fail to be
fair in presenting all human "knowledge", we fail to deliver to that trust.
Tom Haws
Show replies by date