[WikiEN-l] NPOV and Reverting all edits (was: Odd)

Wed Jul 13 13:37:39 UTC 2005

I have never agreed with the practice of "reverting all edits" by a
particular user. Either ban them outright, or take each edit on its
merits.

We need to improve the integrity of Wikipedia policy. Now that we have
the ability to communicate with blocked users via their user talk page,
things are different. And we need to relate this to our NPOV policy,
which has never really taken hold.

We say we want neutrality in the articles, but in the special cases
where NPOV *most* needs application, we tend to surrender to
POV-pushing. This is an egregious lapse, and is retarding Wikipedia's
acceptance as a reliable and authoritative source. 

It's not the fact that "anyone can edit any time" which makes librarians
and college professors shun our work. It's that there is insufficient
dedication to policy enforcement. No one is really worried about "stray
marks" on the page. There are enough eyes to deal with simple vandalism.
It's the long-term errors of bias which hurt us.

Take for example, the Jerusalem article. A friend of mine who is a
PhD-holding religious scholar told me that it was riddled with subtle
digs, and thinly veiled (supposedly neutral) "historical" observations,
and language style, all meant to make some person's case or another,
over historical right to the land, specific religious sites and so
forth.

It's the same with countless other articles. I stopped even trying to
list them, long ago. It's like indexing a book. If there's only a few
references, you list them by page number. When something's mentioned all
throughout, you just say "passim".

So many times I get frustrated with the bias in the articles. I'm
especially frustrated because the problem could be solved so easily.
Simply adopt the following policy:

* Any addition to an article, which 1 or more users label as an "NPOV
violation", may be moved from the article into the text page.
* It must not be replaced, until there is sufficient agreement that an
accurate description of the dispute has been crafted.

Forget 3RR. It's mechanical and therefore (nearly) senseless. Let's
start using our judgment. We are all smart enough to do that.

Ed Poor