"NPOV is a recipe to create self-contradictionary, unreadable articles that misrepresent the Truth(TM)"
Here's a question:
Can you even say "X" is "not npov"? When X is a view, then according to npov, it should be included when it is relevant.
Is npov a recipe for contradiction? Example, fictional article [[Is pie good?]] with the contents of:
"Pie is good [1]. Pie is bad [2]."
It doesn't get better if you add attributions:
"Bill says, pie is good[1]. Bob says, pie is bad[2]"
Or 'biased attribution' style that is recommended.
"Bill who is very knowledgeable says, pie is good[1]. Bob, who is no pie expert, claims pie is bad[2]."
Or the 'typical wikipedia style as of now'
"Pie experts insist that pie is good[1], while critics argue that pie is bad[2]."
Usefulness of the article in all cases? Zero. My question whether pie is good or not (which is why I went to that article) have not been answered.
My suggestion for an alternative to the current implementation of npov is the signed pov fork. So at [[is pie good?]] you get a pov-ambiguation page, that contains a wiktionary-like entry, that redirects you to the various takes on the subject, like this:
--- Is pie good? is an age old question for bakeries. [[is pie good? (Bill's take)|Bill's take]] concludes that pie is good [[is pie good? (Bob's take)|Bob's take]] argues that pie is bad ---
And in the individual articles, bill and bob get to represent their indvidual views and arguments independently. The advantage being, that each view is given the opportunity to make a coherent argument: I can read bill's take, and I can read bob's take, and decide for myself which one of them is more credible.
This would practically resolve the problem of increasing editor density, that is, multiple editors with opposing convictions editing the same article, turning it into an unreadable mess. With 'signed', pov-forked articles, individual editors or pov factions can express them coherently if they show to be incompatible with each other.