In a message dated 4/2/2006 1:32:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
guettarda at gmail.com writes:
The essence of NPOV is to be able to "write for your enemies". It's a great
(and somewhat humbling) experience to write fairly about something you
disagree with or someone you dislike.
Sounds good, but what if the writing is not fair? How does the NPOV handle
that? What if the writing is contradictory data, and the admin says on entry
(A) that it belongs on entry (B) and on entry (B) he says it belongs on (A)?
Is that what you call Neutral
callNeutral writing?
And what about when contradictory evidence is mentioned, and the admin
simply reverts it out with the comment "That does not explain why..." And what if
he comes over from his home entry, and adds to his enemies page "This theory
has been widely discredited by most cosmologists." And then starts an
argument over the meaning of the word cosmologist...And what if when he is in a
dispute, he closes the discussion with a claim of disruption, incompetence,
silly, said that the one expert editing has "questionable credentials, " and
when his edits get reverted, he threatens to ban the one editor who has done
most of the work citing vandalism or some other Wikipolicy violation. And when
evidence of this behavoir is copied over to the discussion page, His friend
deletes it. And when I suggest that in the real world that action would
constitute obstruction of justice, I am arrested for making a legal threat and
banned from Wikipedia without a hearing.
Is that an example of your Wiki NPOV?
tm