--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Each view will be managed by a group of people
who make
their own rules as
to who else is allowed to add information, with
NPOV being
the "mother
> view" from which other views can be extracted (as NPOV is the most
> inclusive).
Mav replied:
That is moving away from NPOV and creates POV editor groups;
both are dangerous to the project. I don't expect you will
get any traction in that direction, so I won't waste much
time on this topic.
But having NPOV articles that described in detail the views
of particular groups of people are fine; they just need to be
correctly titled and qualified. This is just a more focused
form of NPOV where less relevant material gets an appropriate
amount of coverage. It is a fallacy to assume that NPOV means
we can only have very general articles (not that I'm saying
you ascribe to that fallacy).
I think it all depends on how much you're willing to tolerate the
expression of multiple points of view:
1. Non-controversial stuff (like gravity makes rocks fall downward, Rome
is in Italy, or Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa)
We all want one well-written, comprehensive article which tells the
objective truth about what the world is like, and what people have done
in it. These rarely have edit war, and the NPOV policy is irrelevant,
because there are no competing versions of reality on these topics.
2. Mildly controversial stuff (like my religion is true, but yours
isn't)
Almost all of us choose to "agree to disagree". We regard religion as a
realm of personal opinion, and even the most ardent believers are tame
enough to soft-pedal it for Wikipedia. Edit wars are rare, but the few
that crop up are blatantly obvious (like [[Prem Rawat]]).
For most of these mild controversies, it's possible to create a
consensus version that everyone can agree states all points of
disagreement fairly.
3. Highly controversial stuff (people go to jail or to war over these
issues)
No matter how many of us agree to treat these topics "neutrally", the
POV-pushers become unmanageable. Article is in constant turmoil, and
even contributors who are widely held to be NPOV-champs find themselves
sucked into the endless squabbling.
Summary:
If there is only one point of view of a topic, it's easy to write. Just
find out the facts and describe them. If there are two POVs which don't
arouse rancor, we can create a consensus article which describes them
and their differences.
But if there are severely antagonistic POVs, there's no way to reach
consensus, because the POV-pushers refuse to tolerate any mention of
opposing POV but one which condemns it.
So it really depends on how much we can tolerate divergent points of
view.
Ed Poor