Tom Parmenter wrote:
The history seems similar to the notorious
"24", whom I missed by
coming in late on all this. It is not the controversial point of view
that makes these people wrong for Wikipedia, it is the refusal to
engage in any dialogue to improve their contributions, a refusal that
amounts to trolling in my view.
I would agree that this _is_ the essential problem.
In contrast, Mike Irwin (and Ed Poor and several
others, maybe even
me, not to single anyone out) are willing to soldier along, bringing
up sticky points, discusssing them, defending themselves, attacking
other views, apologizing on occasion, giving in from time to time,
sticking to their guns on other occasions, enlivening the talk pages,
and generally engaging in synthesis that assures that most of what
they (we) want to say makes it into the Encyclopedia, however cloaked
in NPOV it may turn out to be in the end.
Yes!
Extremely diverse intellectual perspectives are no obstacle to
cooperation through the mechanism of NPOV, within a very broad range.
But I suspect that there are limits. Some views are so minority,
so at odds with the mainstream, that it will be difficult to integrate
them with the whole. I'm not talking about "major" points of view
like Marxism or Libertarianism or Christianity or Bhuddism. I'm
talking about very small and quirky points of view shared by almost
no one.
--Jimbo