2008/6/5 Jonas Rand joeyyuan@cox.net:

I believe that many of Wikipedia's current policies are flawed, and should be replaced by new ones, and/or new policies should be created. The neutral point of view policy is especially flawed in that there is no such thing as completely unbiased. Everyone has a bias, and it complicates things when people hide biases and pretend not to have them. Wikipedia should be an open, collaborative site where everyone can voice their opinions on a subject. This would be under a horizontal rule below the article.

Claims in an article should mostly be supported by sources, if they are scientific claims. It should also be a place where people experienced about a subject are respected and trusted if their claims are supported by other scientific publications. Original research, however, should also be allowed, if the research is extensive and sophisticated.

All opinions should be allowed.

Thoughts?

Jonas

I think you are looking for Everything2

http://www.everything2.com/

Jonas Rand wrote:

I believe that many of Wikipedia's current policies are flawed, and should be replaced by new ones, and/or new policies should be created. The neutral point of view policy is especially flawed in that there is no such thing as completely unbiased. Everyone has a bias, and it complicates things when people hide biases and pretend not to have them. Wikipedia should be an open, collaborative site where everyone can voice their opinions on a subject. This would be under a horizontal rule below the article.

You clearly don't understand NPOV. Its presence is an acknowledgement that everyone has a bias; it's not a denial. Indeed if everyone were capable of unbiased writing it would no longer be needed. The neutral point of view is not accomplished by one person; rather it is a synthesis of multiple views drawing in different directions until a balance is reached. We have far fewer problems with people hiding their biases than with people insisting on them.

There is a lot of room for expressing opinions on the talk pages where an opinion is recognized as such. For the most part, however, we are not in a position to pass judgement on the validity of an opinion.

Claims in an article should mostly be supported by sources, if they are scientific claims. It should also be a place where people experienced about a subject are respected and trusted if their claims are supported by other scientific publications. Original research, however, should also be allowed, if the research is extensive and sophisticated.

Whether a claim is "scientific" is a subjective judgement. Whether a person is sufficiently "experienced" is a subjective judgement. So too are several of the qualifiers in your statement. Your premises only lead to circular arguments and fallacious reasoning. Who decides whether original research is extensive and sophisticated? If it is truly original we necessarily only have the word of the researcher. Allowing them would leave us with a lot of strange theories without the capacity to perform adequate peer review ourselves.

All this is still consistent with my view that the demand for sources, and accusations of original research are frequently taken to excess, but that's another story. The fundamental requirements in these areas remain sound.

All opinions should be allowed.

They are ... on the talk page.

Ec