Jonas Rand wrote:
I believe that many of Wikipedia's current
policies are flawed, and should
be replaced by new ones, and/or new policies should be created. The neutral
point of view policy is especially flawed in that there is no such thing as
completely unbiased. Everyone has a bias, and it complicates things when
people hide biases and pretend not to have them. Wikipedia should be an
open, collaborative site where everyone can voice their opinions on a
subject. This would be under a horizontal rule below the article.
You clearly don't understand NPOV. Its presence is an acknowledgement
that everyone has a bias; it's not a denial. Indeed if everyone were
capable of unbiased writing it would no longer be needed. The neutral
point of view is not accomplished by one person; rather it is a
synthesis of multiple views drawing in different directions until a
balance is reached. We have far fewer problems with people hiding their
biases than with people insisting on them.
There is a lot of room for expressing opinions on the talk pages where
an opinion is recognized as such. For the most part, however, we are
not in a position to pass judgement on the validity of an opinion.
Claims in an article should mostly be supported by
sources, if they are
scientific claims. It should also be a place where people experienced about
a subject are respected and trusted if their claims are supported by other
scientific publications. Original research, however, should also be allowed,
if the research is extensive and sophisticated.
Whether a claim is "scientific" is a subjective judgement. Whether a
person is sufficiently "experienced" is a subjective judgement. So too
are several of the qualifiers in your statement. Your premises only
lead to circular arguments and fallacious reasoning. Who decides
whether original research is extensive and sophisticated? If it is
truly original we necessarily only have the word of the researcher.
Allowing them would leave us with a lot of strange theories without the
capacity to perform adequate peer review ourselves.
All this is still consistent with my view that the demand for sources,
and accusations of original research are frequently taken to excess, but
that's another story. The fundamental requirements in these areas
remain sound.
All opinions should be allowed.
They are ... on
the talk page.
Ec