Wikipedia is a collaborative project. With this system, articles would not be of as high a quality. Your not considering quality over quantity. Why have 10 good articles to choose from when you can have one excellent one?

You appear to be claiming that Wikipedia should become a place to prove a point. I'm sure theres a page called [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point]], and by replacing disrupt with use, you get the same concept. Wikipedia isn't a place for persuading people that your conspiracy theories are correct, and by "allowing free control to people over their version of the truth" and improving articles by "their passion to convince people that they are right" won't improve things at all.

Steve Lefevre (lefevre.10(a)osu.edu) [050418 03:51]: Is this Wikinfo you're describing? - d.

This is a new guy to me who as far as I know has never edited on Wikinfo. Basic idea is same though. Fred

Let's deal with postmodernism. As Steve says, and as we all know, there are multiple perspectives of single events, people, religious documents etc, and I think it is very much in the interest of public or common knowledge that as many of these perspectives are presented openly, especially in an encyclopedia like this one. As we know (most here better than me - I don't actually write much) the essential challenge of NPOV is to outline these perspectives and present them in context of each other, sometimes as a form of dialogue or debate. This is the very process of this encyclopedia, this is what every contentious article's talk page is about. Steve's proposal is to split this process into a container for multiple POVs. I certainly embrace the spirit of free expression and multiplicity of perspectives that Steve hopes for, but I wonder what this proposal would do to the process of Wikipedia. I wonder what it would do to the actual debates inherent in this collaborative process; whether the debate would fragment and lose it's creative tension. That's essentially my point - a concern for creativity - which is also Steve's main motivation, as i see it. I think Wikipedia *already is* quite a postmodern encyclopedia, in the sense of the constant flux as the status quo (Lyotard from [[Postmodernity]]). I think that the challenge of NPOV is also quite postmodern, ie. to write about a topic with this multiplicity as a given and use this as its creative source. [[Global warming]] is a good example, I think, of a controversial topic characterised from both sides - at least it rises above a "mushy overview". Still though, I think that Steve has raised some interesting points and these should enrich our ongoing debate. Regards, Cormac