[Wikipedia-l] Why I don't believe (any more) in NPOV

[Peter Gervai]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 01:48:09PM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
> NPOV. Neutral Point Of View. It sounds so good. But does it work? I doubt it.
> At least, I doubt whether it works in the way it is now used on Wikipedia.
> 
> Suppose I believe that the Earth is not round but cube-shaped. And I have
> arguments for it. So I put these on [[Earth]]. Next someone else comes, and
> says that that's bollocks. He adds all kids of arguments on why the Earth
> is really a sphere, and arguments against mine. Then I put arguments against
> his. And soon we spend most of the Earth page discussing arguments for and
> against a cubical Earth. Is that really the way to go?

I'm nothing. I hardly exist. But anyway IMHO the article should look like:

  Earth

  Earth is a round place where we have the fun. (external links:
  http://www.nasa.gov/)

           ----------------------------

  Other sources state that it's flat and rests on four turtles. (see
  references: http://flat.example.com/)
 
           ----------------------------

  The Bowlists believe in that Earth is of the shape of a bowl, and we
  are the rice in it. (http://www.bowl/)

Three independent views, no connection. 

I do not see any reason to have arguments. Maybe it is flat. We have enough
bits to list all opinions which have some basis to exist. If there are no
real support (any referenced facts or people supporting) behind a
stupidity^Wweird idea then its submitter could be Talk'ed out of it.
(One-man ideas probably doesn't worth listing, but if the Bowlists
Association [15 billions of members] does believe in something then it could
be listed. (Maybe on 'Earth (Bowl)', that's beyond my foretelling.)

> To be honest, I don't know whether I believe in NPOV. Or ever did. It sounds
> very good in theory. In practice, it does not seem to work. At least not for

I've seen beautiful articles as an example. Most of the political hotspots
(arabs, jews, war, etc) try to be neutral, and some of them does it pretty
well. IMHO.

> years ago, but on what information this is based I do not know. 

That would probably help deciding whether to revert such informations. No
source - no reason to keep. ["If life would be THAT easy!" -- Woody Allan]

> Maybe there simply is no solution. I don't know. What I do know is that I find
> working on Wikipedia a rather irritating thing to do lately. And irritation is
> not what one expects to get from a hobby.

Interaction with people equals irritation. Maybe if we could get rid of
them...

Bests,
Peter