Once again, I'm making a plea that we all work together toward the
common goal of making an encyclopedia of useful human knowledge.
Let's not use Wikipedia as a forum to spread our own views and discredit
the views or reputations of others.
But let's ensure that _all_ points of view relevant to any given topic
are fairly and accurately represented. When public opinion (or even
expert opinion) is divided on any matter, lofty or trivial -- then we
need to step back from making any pronouncements of fact. In such a
case, we need to _include_ every relevant POV (i.e., Point Of View).
I'm seeing far too many objection to including POV in articles. "That
was a POV edit, etc." Nonsense! When an article is one-sided, the _only_
way to balance it and make it neutral is TO INCLUDE ALTERNATE POINTS OF
VIEW.
The very definition of an edit which promotes the NPOV is to DESCRIBE
SOMEBODY'S POINT OF VIEW.
It would help if people would stop using "POV" as a synonym for bias.
The trouble with using "POV" as a slang term for "biased" is that it
blurs the distinction between bias (which does _not_ belong in articles)
and Points Of View (which _do_ belong in articles, properly described,
attributed and sourced).
I'm really tired of hearing criticism about "POV edits" or "adding
POV"
to an article, as if these were obvious violations, meriting little more
than an instant revert. Well, it's obvious to everyone but me and
Jimbo!!!
I ask Jimbo Wales to comment on this disturbing trend. Please, Jimbo,
settle once and for all whether the project you and Larry founded
APPROVES or DISAPPROVES of putting POV (i.e., points of view) into
articles. I don't expect a quick answer, because it's such a big and
crucial question, but I look forward to discussing this at the meeting
in Boston tomorrow.
The fate of Wikipedia hangs on it. We must all "hang together" on the
question of how to deal with multiple or conflicting points of view
(POV), or we'll all "hang separately" (as Ben Franklin put it) --
destroyed one at a time by our enemies.
It is NOT necessary for there to be so much bickering, so many edit
wars, so many settled questions rehashed. That's why people leave, they
can't stand the heat. So I would like us all to chill out about all
that.
Let's remember why we were attracted to Wikipedia in the first place. To
help create useful and accurate articles. (If there's a dispute about
any point, we apply the NPOV policy and say "According to A, B is true;
and according to X, Y is true" and leave it at that. What could be
simpler?)
Ed Poor