Consumerium:Non-neutral point of view

This article is disputed as being absolute nonsense due to its stupid title.

power-driven

The so-called "neutral point of view" is a state where all disputed statements have attribution. However, this is not "neutral" with respect to what is disputed, by who, or how often. And any neutrality is defined by some set of arbitrators or controllers, in large public wikis this is typically a sysop power structure that uses the claim that something is "not neutral" to bolster their own power, and reinforce systemic bias. These people would say that non-neutral points of view include:

• Sympathetic point of view, which is said to be implemented in Wikinfo, a fork of Wikipedia, which in practice could include advertising or funded trolls promoting a concept - who can demand parallel articles for the most contentious subjects be created to express:
• Critical point of view - including disapproval of the concept itself, and claims that it does not exist;

This "sympathetic versus critical" problem is not entirely solved by sysopism (claiming "neutrality" and claiming that whoever has IP block power, knows what it is). Trolls argue that non-neutral point of view itself is merely an invented mechanism used by others to define them as "wrong" - a God's Eye View.

Those who dispute the ability of anyone to tell "sympathetic" from "critical" or "opinion" from "research", would prefer that this article be from a very critical POV, and consider its title to be from a:

• Sysop Vandal point of view - defined by trollists as "we have more advanced weapons than thou point of view"; This will be claimed by trollists to prevail in Publish Wiki as long as there is such a thing as "Opinion Wiki" which requires vandalism (someone deciding things are opinions and moving them there) and as long as there is more power given to old trolls than to the:
• New Troll point of view - which claims there is no Neutral point of view; NTPOV will likely be attempted to guide us in governing Research Wiki in order to avoid getting anyone's leg bitten off (ie. being troll-friendly)

The troll rhetoric seems to arise naturally in reaction to sysopism and will probably flare up intensely any time someone makes an assumption of power. The power-driven model has led only to years of conflict at Wikipedia and has only moved to other levels by banning dissidents like the Wikipedia Red Faction.

faction-driven

A less painful way to express the above debate, is that Consumerium point of view is factionally defined, and that each faction has its own POV that it can agree on with others of that faction. Each Research Wiki page is effectively a battleground for duelling POV, and this conflict helps to bring out the truth - in an adversarial process such as is applied in court. Some things, like the process itself, or the existence of Wikimedia corruption may not be disputed, while others, like the role of "opinion in research", might be hotly disputed, yielding:

• Consensual point of view - articles where faction differences are muted
• Multiple point of view - articles where faction differences are overt

Articles might then be divided among a Green or Pink or Red point of view, depending on the factions, but are not reduced to "sympathetic/critical" or "consensual/multiple" as these are not axes that are derived from real values.

This factional model is politics as usual as in representative democracy. It has its problems, but, it's the only thing we agree to run the world on.

consumer-culture-driven

Governance by Kit-Kat McFlurry is yet another management paradigm when whoever has controll of the fast food syrup supply and freezer gets to do awful things to whoever they think are trolls using these mechanisms.