Consumerium:Non-neutral point of view

    From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
    Revision as of 16:59, 2 July 2004 by 142.177.108.38 (talk) (the title makes this article stupid - trying to fix it and explain reality, which is faction - coloured)

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

    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:

    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.

    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.

    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.