David Gerard wrote:
Multiple forks save edit wars, but I'm entirely unconvinced they're a good thing for the reader. I think NPOV is Wikipedia's really startling and useful innovation, on a par with attempting to write an encyclopedia by the wiki process.
I don't think NPOV is that startling -- hasn't that idea been around in journalism for the past century? I would think that most other encyclopedias make that claim.
Furthermore, I don't buy any claims to NPOV. Language is inherently biased. One bias is what gets mentioned. Wikipedia is more comprehensive than other encyclopedias in another realm, but Another bias is what gets mentioned first. Wikipedia articles are currently serial, so there is always an order to the mentioning of any topic. There are also biases in the wording and terminology of 'controversial' figures and unpopular viewpoints. Who arbitrates who is controversial, or what is unpopular? In the sign-off system I propose, we actually have hard numbers as to what is controversial and unpopular.
Language did not evolve as a mirror of the truth. Writing that purports to come from a neutral point of view comes off as stilted and awkward. Language is a way to debate, argue, and convince. I say put language to its best use and let proponents make their case.
Steve