[WikiEN-l] Neutral point of view

[Jonas Rand]

The definitions of neutrality given by Philip Sandifer, Ian Woolard, David 
Gerard, and Marc Riddell are categorized under definition 1 of neutrality: 
http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?DefinitionsOfNeutrality, which Wikipedia 
should be based on. That is, expressing all points of view and allowing you 
to add your own. Unfortunately, the neutrality described by Wily D and Steve 
Summit is prevalent in Wikipedia, and is categorized under definition 2. 
That neutrality only exists in the minds of some people with the point of 
view that such a thing exists as no point of view.

WJhonson at aol.com says:

>In a message dated 4/13/2008 10:00:04 A.M. Pacific >Daylight Time,
>joeyyuan at cox.net writes:

>Wikipedia has a big flaw: neutrality. The core principle of >writing  from 
>a
>"neutral" point of view is contradictory: it has a point of >view in 
>itself,
>and the point of view is supposedly against points of  >view.
----------------------
>If you hate bigots are you a bigot?  Or are you a meta->bigot?
>"You're a hater, because you hate haters!"

>Essentially the same logic applies to your above >statement.
>"Neutral point-of-view" is not a point-of-view, it is the >absence of any 
>point-of-view.

It is only your point of view that it exists. It is my point of view that it 
does not.