The Cunctator wrote:
That is to say, in my opinion, the root causes for this
current upset
lie in failures of the institution (Wikipedia policies and customs)
rather than the individuals--though the individuals should be able to
transcend the current failures of the institution by avoiding such
temptations as calling for NPOV votes.
I agree to the point that I almost feel ashamed for having participated
in some of those votes. The development of voting processes seems to
lend support to the idea that voting is evil. In the wake of a highly
complex process over the logo, the painful Votes for Deletion, and now
NPOV votes on an individual article it becomes clear that voting is a
technique for majorities to marginalize minority opinions.
I would say that there is a failure of institutional custom in the face
of institutional policy. As a custom NPOV works very well; as a policy
it begins to cry for clear definitions that may in reality be unachievable.
I believe that there is wide consensus that NPOV is something very
positive. That tends to break down when we try to define what that
means. Trying to impose NPOV is a very POV activity. NPOV is a natural
by-product of open-mindedness and fair-mindedness; it's not about
ensuring that critics and supporters of a particular POV have paragraphs
of equal size. The latter only changes the search for NPOV into a
pissing match.
Ec