Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''Dueling POV''' is a better name for the so-called [[neutral point of view]]. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]]. The following is from [[w:User_talk:Angela]], indicating what a central figure [[User:Angela]] is in these debates (all text was also released under GFDL and is by [[w:User:Ark30inf]] whose further opinions should be solicited perhaps here). | | '''Dueling POV''' is what some think of as the [[neutral point of view]]. Others would suggest the opposite, and claim that a system which allows, or even encourages, a duelling POV is somehow going against what was intended for a wiki which aimed to have NPOV as one of its guiding policies. This contains important lessons for [[Wiki Management]] and how to handle [[conflicts between users]]. |
|
| |
|
| "Jimbo said on the mailing list during the RK thing (paraphrased) that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. I respectfully don't see that and instead see the best articles occurring where partisans from both sides write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion.
| | On a user talk page at the English Wikipedia, it was noted how Jimbo had once said on the mailing list that it is his view that the best articles come from such partisans engaging in mortal combat with other partisans. One user argued against this idea, explaining how it may be preferable for partisans from both sides to write for the enemy, police their own kind, and treat seriously any and every criticism of their work rather than circling the wagons and defending it in a kneejerk fashion. |
|
| |
|
| I've always tried to avoid being a utopian. But I feel that most of the regulars here regardless of political stripe could deal with that concept if that were the standard accepted here and insisted on. I'm figuring that either Wikipedia will mature and move that direction or someone will fork and try that philosophy. I'll keep watching because the project (ignoring methodology) is intriguing and useful. --Ark30inf
| | It has been argued that such an approach is preferable to a duelling POV and that this should be the standard accepted and insisted upon for achieving NPOV. One benefit would be to prevent those who want to be collegial from becoming frustrated and leaving. However, whilst many will be uncomfortable with the oppositional philosophy of duelling POVs, it could be argued that systems using this, such as Wikipedia, have got pretty far with using it so far. |
| | |
| ...
| |
| | |
| Oppositional philosophy
| |
| | |
| Angela, I think that's really a Jimbo thing. Jimbo believes that partisans fighting over articles produces the best articles. As long as that is true then many people who want to be collegial will be frustrated and leave. This place has gotten pretty far with the oppositional philosophy and I don't blame him for sticking with it. Its just not for me. -- Ark30inf"
| |