From: Poor, Edmund W
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 4:59 PM
To: lazolla(a)hotmail.com; English Wikipedia
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Resolving content disputes (was: Mother Teresa
article)
Grandfather Louis predicted:
-> Provide a fair, effective means of resolving the
-> content disputes, and >poof<, the cases of disruption
-> requiring bans become rare.
Here I have been remiss. Erik asked me weeks and WEEKS ago to work
with
him on an NPOV tutorial, and I have barely lifted a
finger there.
I seem to be better at actually 'neutralizing' an article or 'talking'
to a specific user about NPOV in context. But I'm having trouble
organizing my thoughts for a [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial]]. Someone else
kind of took it over, but it looks like a rehash of an 'NPOV
definition'
article.
I'll say it again, and I'll probably say it until I'm blue in the face:
the problem you're having with describing NPOV is that the current
LMS-influenced description of what a neutral point of view means is
flawed by self-contradiction, muddled meaning, and bad directives.
I've explicated what I consider a healthy and useful conception of how
to construct better articles and build a better Wikipedia in the past.
I'll just repeat this mantra again:
NPOV is an ideal.
If you understand what that means and what the implications are, you're
on the right track.