Chad Perrin wrote:
I disagree with that characterization of NPOV as a goal. Rather than
say that it's some kind of myth to which we pretend to subscribe here,
I'm of the opinion that it's more an asymptote rather than a point on a
graph, and we are (in general) "approaching NPOV" incrementally with our
efforts. The fact that we may never reach an absolute value of NPOV
idoesn't make it any less real, though.
OK, I think I understand what you are saying. First off, a multiple
competing article system does not prevent an article with an NPOV. If
that article exists and it highly rated, great! Second, humor me and
pitcure this. If we did have a multiple article system, isn't that
approaching the asymptote, albeit in a different way? Say we have three
highly rated and conflicting articles. Some well-reputed author comes
along and creates another article that summarises all three of those
viewpoints. Wouldn't this be a more efficient system? Proponents of each
side are allowed to make their case as they wish. The author who
summarizes has most of the writing work done for him. Nobody has to
destroy the other side's article, and if they don't like the summary,
they can fork it and make their own. However, if the summary is highly
rated, isn't that the golden NPOV goal we are reaching for?
Can you spell out exactly the current process of getting a NPOV?