Editing Community point of view

The '''[[community]] point of view''' is a [[consensual point of view]] of all those who have not been censored.  It is defined by the implicit [[systemic bias]] that is shared by all who consider themselves to be part of a "community" of editors or contributors on a [[large public wiki]].  Some view this as just [[editorial bias]] of the normal sort, as [[Disinfopedia]] seems to have.  Others view it as a symptom of an ideology called "[[virtual community]]", which seems to be a way for insiders to excuse methods to limit debate with outsiders they despise (which is necessary in a real community where physical contact is involved, but is not really an aspect of wiki communication).

Examples:

* [[Meta-Wikipedia]]
* [[Meatball Wiki]]

To date none of these wikis has put measures in place to deal with this bias other than informal methods which have proven clearly inadequate.  Starting by acknowledging that there *is* such a POV, and that it must be neutralized or limited like any other POV, is critical.  ''See also [[individual bias]].''

As an example of the systemic denial, there is no discussion whatever of this on [[m:community point of view|Meta-Wikipedia]], despite several attempts to start one.  It seems the [[Wikipedia Liars Club]] is quite determined to pretend that they have "no POV" and are "inherently neutral" or something.  This seems to be the [[basis for unity]] on which they have built their own [[social capital]].

This is of course also plain bullshit in light of their claims to be "open", and, detrimental in the extreme to that project.  Similarly attempts to declare that [[m:Wikipedia is not a social club]] have been attacked, deleted without process, etc., by those who use it primarily for social means.  This is detrimental to its mission as an encyclopedia of course.  ''[[Wikinfo]] is a better encyclopedia project that is aware of this problem and tries to overcome it, but not by compensation and [[faction]] mechanics, more by just separating the [[multiple point of view]] involved.''

See also [[sysop vandalism]], [[sysop vigilantiism]]

The Consumerium approach should be to start by treating the current set of contributors as at least one [[faction]], and, permitting other factions to be started as differences of view become too extreme to accomodate without some system of [[factionally defined]] or approved edits.  In other words, something controversial should not stand without at least one faction "behind it", and it should be this factional backing, not the contributor's "reputation" or any [[conflicts between users]] that determine whether the edit stands or not.